SETHURAMANversusRAJAMANICKAM

                          (2009] 4 S.C.R 510


A                          SETHURAMAN
                                                                      ,,
                                  V.
                          RAJAMANICKAM
                Criminal Appeal No.486-487 of 2009

                         MARCH 18, 2009
B
       [TARUN CHATTERJEE AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ]

         Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

         s. 397(2) - Criminal revision - Challenging order of trial
c   court rejecting applications ulss 91 and 311 for production of
    documents and recalling the witness - Allowed by High Court
    without giving notice to complainant - HELD: Documents
    sought for, being personal documents of complainant, he
    should have been given an opportunity of hearing - Besides,
o   orders passed by trial court on applications u/ss 91 and 311
    being interlocutory in nature, revision applications were not
    maintainable - Orders of High Court set aside - Practice and
    Procedure.
         In a complaint case arising out of dishonour of
E   cheque, after the complainant had been examined and
    cross-examined, the accused filed applications u/s 91 and
    s.311 CrPC seeking direction to produce the Bank Pass


F
    Books, Income Tax Accounts and LDS deposit receipts
    of the complainant and to recall him for cross-
    examination. The trial court rejected the applications, but
    the High Court in criminal revisions filed by the accused,
                                                                           -
    allowed the applications. Aggrieved, the complainant filed
    the appeals.
         Allowing the appeals, the Court
G
         HELD: 1.1 The High Court did not even issue notice
    to the appellant/complainant and held that the production
    of the documents sought for would cause no prejudice

H                                510
                   SETHURAMAN V. RAJAMANICKAM                511


      to him. The documents in possession of the appellant/ A
      complainant were his personal documents; their
      production was rejected by the trial court, and the High
      Court before ordering their production, should have
      atleast given a hearing to the appellant/complainant. He
      could have shown, firstly, that no such documents existed B
      or that there was no basis for the production of those
      documents, particularly, in view of the fact that he was
      not even cross-examined in respect of those documents.
      [para 3] [513-8-C-D]
                                                                   c
            1.2 The High Court also failed to consider that the
       order passed by the trial -court refusing to call the
       documents u/s 91 CrPC and rejecting the application u/s
       311 Cr.P.C. to recall the witness, were interlocutory orders
       and as such, the revision against those orders was 0
       clearly barred u/s 397(2) Cr.P.C. The trial court, in its
       common order, had clearly mentioned that the cheque
       was admittedly signed by the respondent/accused and
       the only defence that was raised, was that his signed
       cheques were lost and that the appellant/complainant had E
       falsely used one such cheque. The trial court also
       recorded a finding that the documents were not
     ~ necessary. This order did not, in any manner, decide
       anything finally. [para 4] [513-E-F-G]
           1.3 In the circumstances, the High Court could not F
      have interfered in revisional jurisdiction. The judgment of
      the High Court is clearly incorrect in law and is set aside.
      [para 4] [514-8]
-1         CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION :Criminal Appeal G
      No. 486-487 of 2009
           From the Judgement and Order dated 18.11.2004 of the
      Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Criminal Revision Case No.
      1823 & 1824 of 2004.
                                                                   H
    512     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2009] 4 S.CR


A       S. Ravi Shankar, Yamunah Nachiar. Jaya Kedia, for the
    Appellant.

          Manish Kumar Saran, for the Respondent

          The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
B
          V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.
          1. Leave granted.

          2. In these appeals, the common order passed by the
c   Learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in three Criminal
    Revisions, is in challenge. By the instant order, the Learned
    Single Judge set aside the three orders passed by the Trial
    Court dated 26.7.2004 in Crl.M.P. No. 3057 of 2004 in CC.
    No. 216 of 2003 and dated 1.4.2004 in Crl.M.P. Nos. 4184 and
D   4185 of 2004 in C.C. No. 215 of 2003, and allowed those
    Crl.M.Ps. Shortly stated, the appellant herein had filed a criminal
    complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
    (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.PC.' for short), complaining
    therein that a cheque signed by the respondent and given for
E   returning the amount of Rs.2 lakhs, which was a loan, was
    bounced and inspite of the notice given thereafter, the accused
    (respondent herein) had failed to return the money. A Trial ..
    ensued on the basis of this complaint and the complainant
    (appellant herein) was examined as a first witness for the
F   prosecution on 24.8.2004. He was cross-examined also. On
    20.9.2004, the respondent herein filed applications under
    Section 91 Cr.P.C. and Section 311 Cr.P.C . seeking directions
    to produce the Bank Pass Books, Income Tax Accounts and
    the L.D S. deposit receipts of the appellant, as also for recalling
G
    him for cross-examination. This was objected to by a Reply
    dated 24.9.2004. The Court passed an order on 1.10.2004,
    rejecting the applications made by the respondent/accused. The
    respondent/accused filed Criminal Revisions before the High
H   Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C. and the High Court, by the
                  SETHURAMAN V. RAJAMANICKAM                      513
                       [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.)

• this
  impugned common order, proceeded to allow the same. It is A
       order, which has fallen for co·nsideration before us in these
    appeals.

          3. Very strangely, the High Court did not even issue notice
    to the appellant/complainant, on the spacious ground that the B
    production of the documents, which was sought for by the
    accused, would cause no prejudice to the appellant/complainant:
)
    We fail to understand this logic. After all, if the documents in
    possession of the appellant/complainant, which were his
    personal documents, sought for by the accused and the C
    production of which was rejected by the Trial Court, and which
    were ordered to be produced by the High Court, at least a
    hearing should have been given to the appellant/complainant.
    He could have shown, firstly, that no such documents existed or
    that there was no basis for the production of those documents, D
    particularly, in view of the fact that he was not even cross-
    examined in respect of those documents. On this ground, the
    order of the High Court would have to be set aside.

          4. Secondly, what was not realized was that the order E
    passed by the Trial Court refusing to call the documents and
    rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., were
    interlocutory orders and as such, the revision against those
    orders was clearly barred under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. The Trial
    Court, in its common order, had clearly mentioned that the F
    cheque was admittedly signed by the respondent/accused and
    the only defence that was raised, was that his signed cheques
    were lost and that the appellant/complainant had falsely used
    one such cheque. The Trial Court also recorded a finding that G
    the documents were not necessary. This order did not, in any
    manner, decide anything finally. Therefore, both the orders, i.e.,
    one on the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for production
    of documents and other on the application under Section 311
    Cr.P.C. for recalling the witness, were the orders of interlocutory H
    514     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2009] 4 S.C.R.


A   nature, in which case, under Section 397(2), revision was clearly   )
    not maintainable. Under such circumstances, the learned Judge
    could not have interfered in his revisional jurisdiction. The
    impugned judgment is clearly incorrect in law and would have
    to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside. The appeals are
B   allowed.

    R.P.                                          Appeals allowed.