1988 (9) TMI 57 - HC - Central Excise

High Court sets aside lower court order, allows production of document Ex. 45. Order deemed interlocutory, not revisable.

The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the Additional Sessions Judge's order and restoring the Judicial Magistrate's decision to allow the ... Prosecution - Criminal Proceedings - Revision Issues Involved:1. Whether the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate allowing the production of document Ex. 45 is an interlocutory order under Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C.2. Whether Section 107 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, applies to the production and proof of document Ex. 45.Detailed Analysis:1. Interlocutory Order under Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C.The primary issue addressed is whether the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate allowing the production of document Ex. 45 is an interlocutory order under Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C. The learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that the order was interlocutory and, therefore, not subject to revision by the Additional Sessions Judge. This argument was supported by referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Amar Nath and Others v. State of Haryana and Others, AIR 1977 SC 2185, which clarified that 'interlocutory order' refers to orders of a purely interim or temporary nature that do not decide or touch the important rights or liabilities of the parties.Further, the judgment cited Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47, where the Supreme Court discussed the purpose of Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. in preventing delays caused by revisional powers being used for interlocutory orders. The Court noted that the bar in Section 397(2) is not meant to be attracted to intermediate orders that are not purely interlocutory.In this case, the order by the Judicial Magistrate overruling the objection to the production and proof of document Ex. 45 was determined to be an interlocutory order. The High Court emphasized that allowing such challenges in revision would protract litigation, defeating the purpose of Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. The High Court agreed with the Calcutta High Court's decision in Indra Nath Guha v. State of West Bengal, 83 C.W.N. 248, which held that mis-reception of evidence does not necessarily involve a failure of justice and should not be grounds for revision.2. Applicability of Section 107 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968The second issue was whether Section 107 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, applies to the production and proof of document Ex. 45. The respondent argued that the particulars in the document were confidential under Section 107 and could not be produced in court. However, the petitioners contended that Section 107 was not applicable in this case.The Court examined Section 3 of the Gold (Control) Act, which exempts gold belonging to or in possession of the Government or the Reserve Bank of India from the Act's provisions. The sale of gold by the Reserve Bank was not regulated by the Gold (Control) Act, and the tenders received were not statements or declarations under the Act. Therefore, Section 107, which protects the confidentiality of such statements, did not apply.Furthermore, there was no evidence that the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, who provided the document, was authorized under the Gold (Control) Act. The Court found no indication that the information in the document was derived from statements made under the Act. Consequently, the provisions of Section 107 could not prevent the production and proof of document Ex. 45.Conclusion:The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge and restoring the order of the Judicial Magistrate dated 30th August, 1984, allowing document Ex. 45 to be produced and proved according to law. The Court concluded that the order was indeed interlocutory and that Section 107 of the Gold (Control) Act did not apply to the document in question.