9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 94 of the CrPC regarding the production of documents. 2. Validity of the order directing Smt. Parmeshwari Devi to attend court and make a statement on oath. 3. Determination of whether the order was interlocutory and subject to revision under Section 397 of the CrPC. Analysis: 1. The case involved a complaint filed under various sections of the Indian Penal Code regarding a partnership dissolution. The complainant sought the original deed of dissolution, leading to the issuance of summons under Section 94 of the CrPC to produce the document. However, the subsequent order directed Smt. Parmeshwari Devi, who was not a party to the case, to attend court and make a statement on oath regarding the document's possession. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 94 and highlighted that merely producing a document does not make a person a witness unless called as one. The Magistrate's order exceeded the legal provisions by requiring Smt. Parmeshwari Devi to attend court and make statements beyond the scope of the law, leading to the dismissal of her revision applications. 2. The court delved into the legality of the order directing Smt. Parmeshwari Devi to attend court and make a statement on oath. It emphasized that Section 94 of the CrPC only authorizes the issuance of a summons to produce a document, not to examine a person who is not a witness in the proceedings. The order for Smt. Parmeshwari Devi to attend court and make statements went beyond the statutory framework, as there was no provision allowing such actions under the Code. The court concluded that no further action was warranted against the appellant, and the lower courts erred in upholding the order, leading to the appeal being allowed and the impugned orders set aside. 3. The judgment also addressed the argument regarding the nature of the Magistrate's order dated August 8, 1974, as interlocutory and subject to revision under Section 397 of the CrPC. The court clarified that an interlocutory order is an intermediate order made during the preliminary stages of an inquiry or trial. It highlighted that the order adversely affected the appellant, who was not a party to the case, and could not challenge it after the final order, making it non-interlocutory in nature. Citing precedents and legal principles, the court determined that the order was not interlocutory, and the revisional courts erred in applying the bar of Sub-section (2) of Section 397, ultimately leading to the appeal being allowed and the impugned orders being set aside. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the High Court and the Metropolitan Magistrate, emphasizing the importance of adherence to legal provisions and procedural fairness in judicial proceedings.
|
