Home
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the issues of jurisdiction under Section 397 of the CrPC regarding interlocutory orders and the determination of whether a prima facie case exists for trial based on the complaint and report of the Treasury Officer. Jurisdiction under Section 397 of the CrPC: The High Court concluded that the order of the Magistrate directing issuance of process was interlocutory and not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge under Section 397 of the CrPC. However, the Supreme Court held that an order directing issuance of process is not purely interlocutory but intermediate or quasi final, allowing for revisional jurisdiction under Section 397. The Court cited previous cases to support this interpretation, emphasizing that the revisional power could be attracted if the order was not purely interlocutory but intermediate or quasi final. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in its conclusion regarding the Sessions Judge's jurisdiction. Prima Facie Case for Trial: The complaint alleged that the accused persons made false imputations to the Treasury Officer, which led to criminal charges. The Magistrate, after receiving a report from the Treasury Officer, issued summons against the accused under Section 500 read with Section 34 IPC. However, the Sessions Judge set aside this order, considering the case covered by exception 8 to Section 400 IPC. The Supreme Court analyzed the complaint and the report of the Treasury Officer to determine if a prima facie case existed for trial. It was found that the accusations made by the accused fell under exception 8 to Section 499 of the IPC, as they were made in good faith to a lawful authority. As a result, the Court concluded that no case of defamation had been made out, and it was a fit case for quashing the order of issuance of process and the proceedings themselves. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and confirming the Sessions Judge's decision to quash the criminal proceedings.
|