NALLA THAMBY SRITHARAN Vs. UMA SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing an order dated 24-4-89 passed by Sh. J.D. Kapur, Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi, staying the operation of grant of bail by the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi at the time of admission of a revision petition filed by the complainant Sh. Uma Shankar, Air Customs Officer, New Delhi, Indira Gandhi International Air Port.

(2.) I have heard Mr. R.D. Mehra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sh. J.S. Arora, learned counsel for the respondent and have given my careful consideration to the points involved. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no revision is maintainable against an order granting bail by the learned Add. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. Since revision itself is not maintainable, therefore, the order; granting stay of the operation of the order of bail in itself was - liable to be quashed. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to a case B.S. Rawat v. Andre Christopher Mydlarz and others, 1988(36) E.L.T. 60 (Bombay). However, this authority rather helps the case of the Customs Department because in that case also bail order was passed by, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in respect of a foreign national who was alleged to have been involved in smuggling. That order was quashed. Only a direction was given that the trial shall be expedited. Learned counsel then cited an authority of Supreme Court of India in the case of Amar Nath and others v. State of Haryana &, another, 1977 CLR (SC) 242. That was a case in which it was held, that an order substantially affecting the rights of the accused cannot be termed as an interlocutory order and does not fall within the mischief of the said provision (Section 397 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code). In that complaint case an order was passed summoning the accused person. That order was held to be not an interlocutory order and as such revision against such an order was held to be not barred.

(3.) IN the case of Miss R. Shakuntala v. Roshan Lal Aggarwal and ors., 1985 Criminal Law Journal 68, the Bombay High Court had the occasion to consider a similar matter little more deeply. It held that the bail orders are interlocutory in large variety of cases but every kind of bail order is not interlocutory. It was ultimately held as under :-