9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... determined by the Special Court. In Amar Nath's case(1977 (7) TMI 115 - SUPREME COURT), the Hon'ble Supreme court has specifically held that passing any orders in a bail petition is only an interlocutory, against which, no revision would lie under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. In the above circumstances, have no hesitation to hold that the order passed by the Special Court rejecting the petitiners' application is only an interlocutory order, and in view of the bar under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C, petitioners cannot maintain a revision petition, before this Court. This revision petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability alone. - Crl.R. C. No. 387 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 14-3-2017 - V. Bharathidasan, J. For Petitioner : Mr.Vikram Chowdary, Senior Counsel for Mr.Sathish Sundar For Respondent : Mr.N.Ramesh Spl. Public Prosecutor (For Enforcement) ORDER This revision has been filed against the order passed by the Principal Sessions Court , Chennai (designated court for the Prevention of Money Laundering Act) in Crl.M.P.No.3825 of 2017 dated 28.02.2017. 2. The brief facts leading to file this revision is as follows: The petitioners were arres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they were remanded to judicial custody. 4. Earlier the petitioners had filed a petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C seeking to enlarge them on bail before the Special Court , (Principal Sessions Court, Chennai) and the Special Court, by an order dated 10.02.2017, dismissed the bail application. Then, the petitioners filed a bail petition before this Court in Crl.O.No.3347 of 2017. When the said bail petition was pending before this Court, on 26.02.2017, the petitioners have completed 60 days of judicial custody, but the respondent did not file any complaint before the expiry of 60 days of their judicial custody. In the above circumstances, once again, the petitioners have approached the Special Court, by filing a petition under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., seeking a statutory default bail in Crl.M.P.No.3825 of 2017. But the Special Court, by an order dated 28.02.2017, dismissed the above application filed by the petitioners holding that the provision of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C is not applicable to the cases arising under the PML Act. 5. In the meantime, the bail application filed by the petitioners, came up for hearing before this Court, wherein, the petitioners has contended that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C is applicable to the proceedings under the NDPS Act, and contended that the provisions under PML Act is also similar to that of NDPS Act, and the provisions of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C is very much applicable to the proceedings under the PML Act. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that the present revision petition, filed under Section 397 r/w. Section 401 Cr.P.C., against the order passed by the special court, is not at all maintainable in view of the bar under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. as the order passed by the Special Court is only an interlocutory order and the petitioner cannot maintain this revision petition before this Court. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would further contended that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2009(7) Supreme Court Cases 526 (Jeewan Kumar Raut and another /vs/ Central Bureau of Inviestigation), the provisions of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C is not applicable to the proceedings under the PML Act and the petitioners cannot claim any right under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The provisions contained in the NDPS Act is totally different from the P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding. Sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court. But Section 397 (2) imposed a bar for exercising the revisional jurisdiction in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceedings. 14. Now, the question is whether the order passed by the court below dismissing the petition filed under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C seeking default bail is an interlocutory order or final order. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of cases had considered and defined what is an interlocutory order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Amar Nath and others vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in 1977 (4) Supreme Court Cases 137, had held as follows: The main question which falls for determination in this appeal is as to what is the connotation of the term interlocutory order as appearing in sub-section (2) of Section 397 which bars any revision of such an order by the High court. The term interlocutory order is a term of well-known legal significance and does not present any serious difficulty. It has been u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plea of the accused seeking bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C will not conclude the above proceedings, as the right of the petitioners to come out on bail was not finally determined by the Special Court. In Amar Nath's case(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme court has specifically held that passing any orders in a bail petition is only an interlocutory, against which, no revision would lie under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. 18. In the above circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that the order passed by the Special Court rejecting the petitiners' application is only an interlocutory order, and in view of the bar under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C, petitioners cannot maintain a revision petition, before this Court. 19. The learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.370 of 2014 (Thangaraj @ Thamilarasan and others vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Q Branch CID, Ramanathapuram) and another judgment of this court in reported in 2003(1) CTC 29 ( Palanisamy @ Palani and 5 others /vs/ The Inspector of Police, Thalii Police, Dharmapuri District). Wherein, this court entertained a revision petition against the order passed in an application fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
