PANATAR ARVINDBHAI RATILAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is a checkered history to an offence registered with "A" Division Police Station, Jamnagar in its Crime Register No. 42 of 1986. As the Police did not initiate any investigation for a period of about eight months or so, the approached the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on or about 20-4-1987 and obtained certain orders of investigation. Thereafter the local Police of Jamnagar also initiated inquiry and against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Criminal Revision Application No. 18 of 1989. at the end, they submitted report on 9-6-1987 and sought "C" summary. The complainant-present petitioner objected to it and while hearing the report as to "C" summary, the learned Magistrate allowed the proposed accused and the complainant also to be heard against which the petitioner filed Criminal Revision Application No. 115 of 1987 in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jamnagar. The learned Sessions Judge agreed with the petitioner and over-ruled the decision of the learned Magistrate allowing the accused to make submission. There were about seven accused, who should strictly speaking be referred to suspects only, and two of them approached this Court by way of Criminal Revision Application No. 169 of 1988. That matter came to be decided on 22-7-1988 by Mr. Justice G. T. Nanavati confirming the order of the learned Sessions Judge.

(2.) The learned Magistrate thereafter heard the parties including the present petitioner and held that "C" summary is required to be granted, and therefore, against that order, again a Revision Application came to be filed before the learned Sessions Judge at Jamnagar and it is numbered as Criminal Revision Application No. 18 of 1989. In this Revision Application the said original suspects Nos. 2 and 3 who had approached this Court by Criminal Revision Application No. 169 of 1988 had again applied to the learned Sessions Judge that they be permitted to make a submission. In other words they wanted to be heard with regard to the Revision Application pertaining to the granting of "C" summary. The learned Sessions Judge was pleased to allow this Application by his order dated. 6-1-1990, and being aggrieved by this order the original complainant has approached this Court by way of this Criminal Revision Application.

(3.) On behalf of the aforesaid suspects-respondents the learned Advocate Shri Nanavati has taken preliminary objections and it is to the effect that this is nothing else, but an interlocutory order and as such no revision would lie pursuant to sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. To this the learned Advocate Shri Anandjiwala appearing for the petitioner has contended that in first instant it might be that matter remains to be decided and no final decision with regard to the granting "C" summary or otherwise has been given by the learned Sessions Judge inasmuch as the Revision Application itself is yet to be decided. The fact remains that the entire character of the Revision Application pending before the learned Sessions Judge would undergo radical change on account of his permitting the suspects to have their say as if they are party respondent before him directly connected with the matter right from the stage of the Court which passed the original order. he further submitted that the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate granting "C" summary itself being made a subject-matter of Revision, the matter pending before the learned Sessions Judge should be taken as a continuation of that proceeding and unless the party seeking permission before the learned Sessions Judge, had a right to be heard in the Court in the first instance, they can never be permitted to have their say before the learned Sessions Judge and much less therefore, the learned Sessions Judge could have permitted them to have their say.