9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 827X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e closed or even if he is having idea the advocate for accused appears to be not well and was seeking adjournments - It also reveals from the roznama that the cross of PW1 had commenced but ultimately it could not be concluded for one or the other reason. Though amount of ₹ 1,80,000/- has been deposited in this Court the accused avoided to pay the same since long. The hardship and inconvenience caused to the complainant also cannot be overlooked. He can be compensated by way of costs. In view of this background also it is necessary to expedite the matter - petition allowed. - CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.7 OF 2021 - - - Dated:- 11-8-2021 - SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J. Mr. Ravi Gawas, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.S. Kakodkar, Advocate for the Respondent. JUDGMENT : Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent waives service. By consent and at the request of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. 3. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the petitioner will be referred as the accused and the res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidered separately in relation to the particular purpose for which it is required. In para 1607 it is said : In general a judgment or order which determines the principal matter in question is termed final . In para 1608 at pages 744 and 745 we find the words: An order which does not deal with the final rights of the parties, but either (1) is made before judgment, and gives no final decision on the matters in dispute, but is merely on a matter of procedure, or (2) is made after judgment, and merely directs how the declarations of right already given in the final judgment are to be worked out, is termed interlocutory . An interlocutory order, though not conclusive of the main dispute, may be conclusive as to the subordinate matter with which it deals. 7. It is submitted that in view of Section 397(ii) the powers of revision shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceedings. As the order passed rejecting application for adjournment is an interlocutory order revision will not lie and petition is the remedy available to the petitioner. 8. He also relied on Deborah Mary Crasto Leclerc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the important rights, or the liabilities of the parties. Any order which substantially affects the right of the accused, or decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar a revision to the High Court against that order, because that would be against the very object which formed the basis for insertion of this particular provision in S. 397 of the 1973 Code. Thus, for instance, orders summoning witnesses, adjourning cases, passing orders for bail, calling for reports and such other steps in aid of the pending proceeding, may no doubt amount to interlocutory orders against which no revision would lie under S. 397 (2) of the 1973 Code. But orders which are matters of moment and which affect or adjudicate the rights of the accused or a particular aspect of the trial cannot be said to be interlocutory order so as to be. outside the purview of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. 10. In the present matter, the applicant is challenging the order of rejection of his application for grant of time and in consequence thereof closure of cross of PW1. In my considered opinion, the said order is interlocutory in all sense and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accused on application by the accused. 09/05/19 It was adjourned. From this roznama it appears that advocate Noronha for accused was sick and supporting medical certificate was also placed on record. 11/06/19 Cross of PW1 was partly recorded and matter was adjourned for further cross-examination on 26.06.2019 26/06/19 Accused was present in person and offered to pay interim amount which advocate for the complainant refused to accept. As it was a cheque matter it was then adjourned to 06.07.2019. 06/07/19 Accused was present. He was directed to procure the DD of the ordered amount. Time was granted on application of accused for the compliance. Matter was then adjourned to 17.07.2019. 17/07/19 On this day, adjournment granted as grandmother of the accused expired. 30/07/19 Warrant came to be issued to Collector for recovery of amount of ₹ 1,80,000/-. Matter was adjourned on 16.08.2019 and opportunity was given to the accused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , one should not ordinarily go beyond the date on which adjournment is sought for. The earlier adjournments, if any, granted would certainly be for reasonable grounds and that aspect need not be once again examined if on the date on which adjournment is sought for the party concerned has a reasonable ground. The mere fact that in the past adjournments had been sought for would not be of any materiality. If the adjournment had been sought for on flimsy grounds the same would have been rejected. Therefore, in our view, the High Court as well as the learned District Judge and the Rent Controller have all missed the essence of the matter. 17. As against this, learned Counsel for complainant submitted that the order passed by learned JMFC is perfectly justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 18. On perusal of roznama it reveals that the accused and his Counsel sought adjournments on many grounds and even after granting last opportunity did not cross-examine PW1/complainant. He was not diligent in availing his last opportunity and therefore the impugned order warrants no interference. 19. I have considered rival contentions of both the parties. It is true that mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the cross of PW1 had commenced but ultimately it could not be concluded for one or the other reason. Though amount of ₹ 1,80,000/- has been deposited in this Court the accused avoided to pay the same since long. 23. However, to grant a fair opportunity to the accused, I am inclined to allow this petition. At the same time, hardship and inconvenience caused to the complainant also cannot be overlooked. He can be compensated by way of costs. In view of this background also it is necessary to expedite the matter. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order : O R D E R (i) Criminal Writ Petition is allowed (ii) Order dated 16.08.2019 to the extent rejecting adjournment and closing cross of PW1 is hereby quashed and set aside subject to condition that the accused shall pay ₹ 10,000/- \= as cost to the complainant through Demand Draft within a period of two weeks from today. (iii) On such payment, parties to appear before the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Margao, on 01.09.2021 at 10.00 a.m. (iv) Petitioner shall conclude cross of PW1 within a period of two weeks, thereafter. (v) Criminal Case No.389/OA/NIA/2018/II befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
