HAR PRASAD Vs. RADHEY LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these revision applications arise between the same parties and they are off shoots of a protracted trial pending in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Alwar.

(2.) HAR Prasad petitioner filed a complaint against Radhey Lal, Bhagwat Swaroop and Onkar singh Shekhawat for various offences on 18 6-65 During the proceedings Onkarsingh Shekhawat was discharged. The complaint survives and is continuing against Radhey Lal and Bhagwat Swaroop, who are said to be the brothers of the complainant HAR Prasad. On 30. 8. 1972 charge was framed against both the accused persons under section 454, Indian P. C. The complainant examined as many as 40 witnesses on behalf of the prosecution. On 29-8-72 the learned trial Court examined Mangtu Ram as P. W. 40. Since other witnesses were not present he closed the prosecution evidence and called upon the accused to enter upon defence. The complainant HAR Prasad submitted another application asking the Court to examine Ramjilal, Ramesh Chandra and Motilal on behalf of prosecution. This came to be considered on the next date i. e. 26. 9. 74. This request was opposed by the accused. The learned trial Magistrate rejected the application of the complainant by his order dated 26 9. 74. The orders dated 29. 8. 74 and 26 9. 74 are subject matter of revision No. 495/-1974. These orders were also challenged before the Sessions Judge, Alwar, in revision. The learned Sessions Judge did not accept the contention raised by the complainant, and dismissed the revision application. Hence this revision in this court.

(3.) REFERENCE may be made to a decision of this Court in Dhola vs. The state reported in 1974 W. LN. 889. The learned Judge dealt with the interpretation of the word 'inter locutory' appearing in Sec. 397 (2) of the New Code. He referred to several cases and came to the conclusion that a proceeding in an action is said to be interlocutory when it is incidental to the principal object of the action namely the Judgment. The learned Judge observed that an inter-locutory order is one which is passed at some intermediate stage of a proceeding generally to advance a cause of justice for the final determination of the rights between the parties. With great respect, I agree with the view taken by him. The trial of the complaint filed by Har prasad is pending in the Court and a charge under section 454, Indian P. C has been framed against the accused persons namely Radhey Lal and Bhagwat Swaroop. The ultimate object of the trial is either to convict the accused persons if found guilty or to acquit them The order passed by the learned Magistrate on 28-11-1974 permitting the accused party to lead secondary evidence is clearly an order passed in the intermediate stage. It is not a final determination of the rights between the parties involved in the proceedings. Mr. Kasliwal has not been able to cite any authority to show that the impugned order can in any manner be termed as final order. I am, therefore, clearly of the opinion that the order under challenge in revision No. 497/1974 is also inter locutory in character. Section 397 (2) referred to above clearly makes an inter locutory order not revisable by this Court or by the Sessions Judge under section 397 (1 ).