1974 (12) TMI 83 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the revision application.
2. Interpretation of Section 484 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
3. Constitutional validity of Section 484 of the new Code.
4. Applicability of the old Code vs. the new Code to pending proceedings.
5. Jurisdiction of the High Court to revise interlocutory orders under Section 397(2) of the new Code.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Revision Application:
The primary issue was whether the revision application filed by the original accused against the interlocutory order framing a charge under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC was maintainable. The court concluded that under Section 397(2) of the new Code, 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. Therefore, the revision application against the interlocutory order was not maintainable.

2. Interpretation of Section 484 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
Section 484(2)(a) of the new Code stipulates that any appeal, application, trial, inquiry, or investigation pending immediately before the new Code's commencement should be disposed of according to the old Code. The court interpreted this to mean that the proceedings pending at the time the new Code came into force should continue under the old Code. However, the revision application filed after the new Code's commencement would be governed by the new Code.

3. Constitutional Validity of Section 484 of the New Code:
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Section 484, arguing it violated Articles 14 and 20 of the Constitution of India. The court did not find it necessary to delve into this issue, as it had already determined that the revision application was not maintainable under the new Code.

4. Applicability of the Old Code vs. the New Code to Pending Proceedings:
The court examined whether the old Code or the new Code would apply to the pending proceedings. It was held that the trial, which was pending when the new Code came into force, would be governed by the old Code. However, the revision application, being filed after the new Code's commencement, would be subject to the new Code's provisions, specifically Section 397(2), which restricts the revision of interlocutory orders.

5. Jurisdiction of the High Court to Revise Interlocutory Orders under Section 397(2) of the New Code:
The court analyzed whether the High Court had the jurisdiction to revise interlocutory orders under the new Code. It was concluded that Section 397(2) explicitly prohibits the revision of interlocutory orders, thus limiting the High Court's powers in this regard. The court emphasized that the revision is not a matter of right for the parties but a supervisory power of the High Court, which can be exercised suo motu.

Conclusion:
The court discharged the rule and vacated the stay, concluding that the revision application was not maintainable under the new Code. The application for leave to approach the Supreme Court was also rejected. The judgment clarified the interpretation and applicability of the new Code's provisions concerning pending proceedings and the High Court's jurisdiction over interlocutory orders.