K L SACHDEVA Vs. RAKESH KUMAR JAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite party is engaged in publication of books under the name and style of N. J. Publishers, Varanasi. The applicant carries on the business in printing as New Delhi under the name of M/s. Skylark Printers. The allegations of the opposite party in the complaint filed by him on July 31, 1979, in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, giving rise to these proceedings are that he had asked the applicant to print and bind 1, 100 copies of his publication, namely, Indian Mythology. The opposite party had also told the applicant that the latter was to obtain instructions from M/s. Bhartiya Vidya Prakashan, Delhi Branch, New Delhi, who are the sole distributor and agent for and on behalf of the opposite party. The prints were to be handed over to the said distributor at New Delhi. The applicant, it was further alleged, handed over 300 copies only upto January 22, 1977, but not the rest despite notice given by the opposite party on January 22, 1977. On September 6, 1978, it is further stated the accused met the opposite party by chance in Varanasi. The complainant asked him for the remaining copies which the accused denied. On February 19, 1981, the Judicial Magistrate II, Varanasi, directed charge to be framed against the applicant for an offence under Section 406, Indian Penal Code. It was observed that no case was made out for offence under Sections 420/427, Penal Code. The charge was framed accordingly against the applicant for offence under Section 406, Penal Code on April 14, 1981. Aggrieved, he filed this application under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(2.) Learned counsel for the opposite party raised a preliminary objection. It was contended that for the charge framed against the accused for offence under Section 406. Penal Code, he could have filed a revision under Section 397(1) of the Code and in view of the alternative remedy thus available the inherent powers could not be invoked. The submission for the applicant is that revision could not lie since the impugned order is interlocutory, and not final.

(3.) Sub-section (2) of Section 397 enacts that the powers of revision conferred by sub section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry trial or other proceedings. No such provision existed in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. As appearing from the Objects and Reasons of the Code, this provision was introduced because it was found that the powers of revision against interlocutory orders had been one of the most contributing factors in the delay of disposal of criminal cases. The expression interlocutory order is not defined in the Code. The settled view is that, in the context this expression has to be given a broad meaning and a very liberal construction so as to achieve the object of the Act without interfering with the fairness of the trial V. C. Shukla v. State. In Blocks Law Distionary, 5th edition (1977) at page 731 interlocutory has been defined thus: Provisional interim temporary; not final something intervening between the commencement and the end of a suit which decides some point or matter, but is not a final decision of the whole controversy.