Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 will not disturb concurrent orders limiting defence witnesses absent legal or jurisdictional error.

Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is not ordinarily invoked to disturb concurrent orders regulating defence evidence where no legal error or jurisdictional infirmity is shown. In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the trial court permitted examination of only three defence witnesses at the stage of the accused's further statement under Section 313 CrPC, and the revisional court affirmed that limitation. On scrutiny of the record, the challenge failed and interference was declined, leaving the orders restricting defence evidence undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order restricting the accused to examine only three defence witnesses, and the revisional order affirming it, called for interference in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The application sought permission to examine ten witnesses at the stage of further statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The trial court partly allowed the request and permitted examination of three witnesses. The revisional court affirmed that order. On scrutiny of the record, no error of law or any other jurisdictional infirmity was found in the concurrent orders. The exercise of supervisory jurisdiction was therefore unwarranted.

Conclusion: The challenge to the orders below failed, and interference was declined.

Final Conclusion: The applicant was not entitled to supervisory relief, and the impugned orders limiting the defence evidence remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is not invoked where concurrent orders regulating defence evidence disclose no legal or jurisdictional error.

---