Interlocutory order and statutory confidentiality: production of a document in trial was not barred from revision or proof under the Gold Control Act.

An order allowing a document to be produced and proved during a pending criminal trial is ordinarily interlocutory because it does not finally determine the parties' rights, so revision is barred under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; any incorrect admission of evidence can be examined at final adjudication. Statutory confidentiality under Section 107 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 applies only to particulars in returns, declarations, accounts, registers, or other documents produced under the Act, or to information obtained by authorised persons acting under it. Where the document is not shown to fall within that scope, Section 107 does not prevent production and proof.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order permitting production and proof of a document during trial was an interlocutory order barred from revision under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (ii) Whether Section 107 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 protected the document from production and proof.

Issue (i): Whether an order permitting production and proof of a document during trial was an interlocutory order barred from revision under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: An order which does not finally determine the rights of the parties and which merely allows a document to be brought on record during the pendency of the trial is of an interim character. The exclusion in Section 397(2) is intended to prevent revisional interference at intermediate stages of the proceedings and to avoid delay in the trial. Misreception or incorrect admission of evidence does not, by itself, conclude the lis and can be dealt with at the stage of final adjudication.

Conclusion: The order permitting production and proof of the document was interlocutory and the revisional court could not interfere with it under Section 397(2).

Issue (ii): Whether Section 107 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 protected the document from production and proof.

Analysis: The statutory confidentiality under Section 107 applies to particulars contained in returns, declarations, accounts, registers or other documents produced in accordance with the Act, and to information obtained by persons acting under the Act. The record did not show that the document originated from returns or declarations made under the Act, nor that the officer issuing it was acting as an Administrator or as an authorised officer under the Act. Further, gold belonging to or in the possession of the Reserve Bank was outside the Act under Section 3, so the auction material was not shown to be information protected by Section 107.

Conclusion: Section 107 did not apply and could not be used to prevent production and proof of the document.

Final Conclusion: The revisional interference was unsustainable, the trial court's order admitting the document stood restored, and the petition succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: An order allowing a document to be produced and proved during an ongoing trial is ordinarily interlocutory and not revisable under Section 397(2), and statutory confidentiality provisions apply only where the document or information is shown to fall within the precise scope of the enactment.

---