2017 (3) TMI 690

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and public servants for the alleged offences under Sections 120-B r/w.409 and 420 IPC, and Section 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. Since the above offences are scheduled offence as per Section 2(1)(y) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002, (herein after called PML Act .), the above ECIR case was registered by the Directorate of Enforcement Chennai Zonal Office. 3. Earlier the Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi Zonal Office registered a case in ECIR/14-DZ-II/2016, dated 16.12.2016, based on a crime registered by the Crime Branch Police, New Delhi, for the offences under Sections 420, 409, 188 and 120-B IPC. In the above case, the Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi Zonal Office, arrested one Parasmal Lodha, and during enquiry, the said Parasmal Lodha, has given a statement that he and Sekar Reddy, the accused in Crime No.RC MA-1/2016A, registered by the C.B.I., Chennai, are friends and Parasmal Lodha assisted the said Sekar Reddy, for exchanging nearly Rs. 7 crores of currency notes through one Raman @ Kishan Hirani, a money exchanger, based in Hongkong and his associates, Shivshankar in Delhi and Amarpal Mahaveer Hirani At Chennai. Based on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....holding that the provisions of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C is not applicable to the cases arises under the PML Act, without challenging the above order, in the manner known to law, the petitioners cannot raise the above plea in the regular bail application filed by them under Section 439 Cr.P.C. In the above circumstances, now challenging the order passed by the Special Court, rejecting the petitioners' application filed under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., the present revision has been filed. 6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the provisions of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C very much applicable to the cases arises under the PML Act also, as the respondent did not file the complaint within the statutory period of remand of 60 days, as per Section 65 of PML Act , the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code is very well apply to the proceedings under PML Act, so far they are not in consistent with the provisions of the PML Act, and in view of the default committed by the respondent, a indefeasible right has been occurred to the petitioners and the trial court dismissed the application erroneously relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ew of the objections raised by the respondent regarding the maintainability of the revision, this court has to decide whether the present revision filed under Section 397 r/w.401 Cr.P.C is maintainable against the order passed by the Special Court, and whether the order passed by the court below is an interlocutory order or it is in the nature of a final order. Before considering those issues, I would like to refer the provisions of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Which reads as follows:- "(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding. Sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record. Explanation. All Magistrates, whether Executive or Ju....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... It seems to us that the term interlocutory order in Section 397(2) of the 1973 Code has been used in a restricted sense and not in any broad or artistic sense. It merely denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or the liabilities of the parties. Any order which substantially affects the right of the accused, or decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar a revision to the High court against that order, because that would be against the very object which formed the basis for insertion of this particular provision in Section 397 of the 1973 Code. Thus, for instance, orders summoning witnesses, adjourning cases, passing orders for bail, calling for reports and such other steps in aid of the pending proceeding, may no doubt amount to interlocutory orders against which no revision would lie under Section 397(2) of the 1973 Code. But orders which are matters of moment and which affect or adjudicate the rights of the accused or a particular aspect of the trial cannot be said to be interlocutory order so as to be outside the purview of the revisional jurisdiction of the High....