TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether persons who were not parties to the complaint before the trial court could be joined as parties in a criminal revision challenging the order issuing process. (ii) Whether, in revision against issuance of process, the High Court could look beyond the complaint and accompanying papers to examine allegations against such persons.
Issue (i): Whether persons who were not parties to the complaint before the trial court could be joined as parties in a criminal revision challenging the order issuing process.
Analysis: The revisional court's power under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is exercised in aid of the challenge to the correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned order under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. A person who was neither an accused nor otherwise a party before the trial court is not automatically a necessary party in a revision directed against the order issuing process. The safeguard in Section 401(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies where an order may be made to the prejudice of a person already within the proceeding, not to strangers to the original complaint.
Conclusion: The deleted respondents were not necessary parties and their deletion was proper.
Issue (ii): Whether, in revision against issuance of process, the High Court could look beyond the complaint and accompanying papers to examine allegations against such persons.
Analysis: At the stage of issuance of process, the revisional court is confined to the complaint and the material that was before the trial court to see whether they prima facie disclose an offence and whether the order issuing process was correct and proper. Questions as to who instigated the prosecution or whether other persons were instrumental in setting it in motion are foreign to that limited inquiry. The revisional court therefore cannot expand the scope of revision into an enquiry against persons not before the trial court.
Conclusion: The High Court rightly confined itself to the record before the trial court and was justified in refusing to treat the non-parties as necessary respondents.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the High Court correctly held that the revisional challenge to the order issuing process had to be tested only on the complaint and accompanying material, and the non-party respondents could not be retained in the revision proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: In a criminal revision against issuance of process, the High Court's inquiry is confined to whether the complaint and accompanying materials prima facie disclose an offence, and persons who were not parties before the trial court are not necessary parties to that revision unless the revisional order is proposed to operate directly to their prejudice.
TaxTMI 
