Sunderlal Patwa vs Digvijay Singh and another

Uma Nath Singh, J.

The Criminal Revision impugns the order dated 19-12-2001, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal in Criminal Case No. 5599 of 2001, whereby the learned Magistrate has disallowed the permission to ask certain questions in respect of allotment of the House No. 8-A, Lodhi Estate to non-applicant No.1, and also about the rate and price of the land allotted to ''Nayee Duniya'', a local news paper, which, according to him, were out of context and were absolutely unrelated to the facts in issue.

It appears from the averments of the criminal revision that the non-applicant No. 1 in prosecution of his complaint u/s 500 Indian Penal Code against the applicant and the non-applicant No. 2, was examined in chief on 5-12-2000 and was also cross-examined on the same day. Moreover, an application u/s 311, Criminal Procedure Code was moved on behalf of the applicant, to re-examine him which was rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, but in the criminal revision No. 187/2001, as per order dated 21-8-2001 the learned Sessions Judge, Bhopal directed the re-examination of the said non-applicant on 19-12-2001. However, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while exercising a proper check on recording of evidence, disallowed two questions which, according to the learned counsel for the applicant, had been asked in terms of the provisions of section 146 of the Evidence Act, and, thus, as a hind-sight, he stopped further cross-examination. Hence this criminal revision.

During the arguments, incessant efforts were made by both sides to make a mountain out of a molehill by travelling much too far into the merits of the case, which this Court, in exercise of its powers of revision, cannot entertain nor is it supposed to appreciate, and more so, in view of an express bar u/s 397(2) Criminal Procedure Code. This Court cannot tread upon the jurisdiction of the trial magistrate and monitor recording of evidence by interfering with an order which appears to be even less than interlocutory in nature, simply because the parties to the case are important political personalities. Having regard to all circumstances of the case, this Court has the advantage of seeking guidance from the observations of Hon''ble Krishna Iyer J. in In Re: The Special Courts Bill, 1978, at p. 442 para 15, which read as;

(I)t is common knowledge that currently in our country criminal courts excel in slow motion. The procedure is dilatory, the dockets are heavy, even the service of process is delayed and, still more exasperating, there are appeals upon appeals and revisions and supervisory jurisdictions, baffling and baulking speedy termination of prosecutions...

The Hon''ble Apex Court has reproduced the above observations and has further added to that, in the matter of Ganesh Narayan Hegde Vs. S. Bangarappa and Others, . To borrow the exact words from the judgment, it says:

The slow motion becomes much slower motion when politically powerful or rich and influential persons figure as accused. FIRs are quashed. Charges are quashed. Interlocutory orders are interfered with. At every step, there will be revisions and applications for quashing. In short, no progress is ever allowed to be made...

The Hon''ble Apex Court in the matter of Santosh De and Another Vs. Archna Guha and Others, has expressed anguish as:

Any and every single interlocutory order is challenged in the Superior Courts and the Superior Courts, we are pained to say, are falling prey to their stratagems. We expect the Superior Courts to resist all such attempts. Unless a grave illegality is committed, the Superior Courts should not interfere.

The other aspects of the case which this Court is to have regard include the twin duties of the trial Court in the course of recording of evidence, namely, to search for truth and deliver justice. The permissible and impermissible conducts of a trial Judge for his effective intervention during recording of evidence have been precisely laid down in clean clear terms by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the matter of Makhan Lal Bangal Vs. Manas Bhunia and Others, , as:

....needs to effectively control examination, cross-examination and reexamination of the witnesses so as to exclude such questions being put to the witnesses as the law does not permit and to relieve the witnesses from the need of answering such questions which they are not bound to answer.

The Hon''ble Apex Court has further observed that

the power to disallow questions should be effectively exercised by reference to sections 146, 148, 150, 151 and 152 of the Evidence Act by excluding improper and impermissible questions. The examination of the witnesses should not be protracted and the witness should not be harassed. The cross-examiner must not be allowed to bully to take unfair advantage of the witness...

To answer the core question as how to know as whether an order is interlocutory in nature, the dynamics have been articulated by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande and Etc. Vs. Uttam and Another, para 5 as:

....is to correct miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law or irregularity of procedure.

The Hon''ble Apex Court has further articulated the dynamics in the case of K.K. Patel and Another Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, as:

...Would it result in culminating the proceedings, if so any order passed on such objections would not be merely interlocutory in nature as envisaged in section 397(2) of the Code.

The learned Trial Magistrate, in his wisdom, by disallowing two questions on the ground of their being strewn with irrelevancies, has only passed an order as per Makhan Lal Bengal''s case (supra). And this Court sitting in revision, may and usually does not interfere with any such order unless it would result in culminating or terminating the proceedings resulting in miscarriage of justice ''the pass-word'' for exercise of this Court''s powers of revision.

This criminal revision does not invoke the inherent powers of the Court u/s 482 Criminal Procedure Code and the same cannot be suo-motu exercised in view of the principles laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Madhu Limaye Vs. The State of Maharashtra, and further as per Amar Nath and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, , the inherent powers cannot be exercised to defeat the bar u/s 397(2), Criminal Procedure Code.

In the premises discussed hereinabove, I am inclined to say ''NO'' to this criminal revision on the question of maintainability itself. Accordingly, it is hereby rejected.