LAKHWINDER SINGH S Vs. C B I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS along with others are being tried by the Sessions Judge, Chandigarh with respect to offences punishable under Sections 120 -B/302/307 IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act. On 27.2.1997 on Surinder Sharma was being examined by the prosecution as a witness. It is alleged that during examination -in -chief of the witness, the Special Public Prosecutor for Central Bureau of Investigation adduced evidence from the witness that petitioners were identified by the Central Bureau of Investigation officials in the CBI office in Sector -30. Lakhwinder Singh and Gurmit Singh were shown to him. An objection was raised by the petitioners (defence) that identification of the accused by a witness in presence of the police was hit by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and was inadmissible. During examination -in -chief the evidence was further sought to be adduced that the Central Bureau of Investigation officials had called the witness to their office in Sector 30. They showed him some photographs out of which four photographs of the petitioners were identified by the witness. The defence again took up the objection that identification of the accused -persons by means of the photographs in presence of the police officials is not admissible and this evidence should not be allowed to be adduced.

(2.) THE learned Sessions Judge, Chandigarh vide the impugned order dealt with the said objection. The trial Court held that the probative value which has to be attached to such a statement is a different matter and has to be determined in light of the other factors, but rejected the contention that the said fact so stated was hit by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners contended that the prosecution cannot be permitted to adduce evidence with regard to identification of the accused - persons before the police by means of his photographs. In view of the learned counsel this is hit by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the learned trial Court should not have recorded the evidence. On behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation, a preliminary objection had been raised that the impugned order cannot be challenged in a revision petition nor under the inherent powers of the Court. It was urged that it was an interlocutory order and a revision petition as such is barred. Needless to say that petitioners' counsel on the contrary felt and urged that it was not an interlocutory order. Sub -section (2) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. is being referred by the respondents' counsel reads : - "397(2). 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 proceeding." The said provision clearly shows that the power of revising an order under sub -section (1) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised in relation to an interlocutory order passed in an appeal, enquiry or trial. The learned trial Court had rejected the objection of the petitioners pertaining to admissibility of certain documents. The short question that comes up for consideration is as to whether it is an interlocutory order or not.