Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Sunil Chanchlani, challenged an order dated 10th March 2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Revision No.464/2012. The revisional court had directed the trial court to issue witness summons to witnesses as per the list given in application Exh.92 and record their evidence. The applicant appeared in person and raised a preliminary objection that the revision application was not maintainable because the complainant had filed it directly without seeking leave of the court as required under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High Court noted that this objection was never taken before the revisional court. Relying on the principle that an objection not raised before the lower court cannot be raised for the first time in appeal unless it results in a failure of justice, the court held that since the applicant failed to show any miscarriage of justice caused by the impugned order, the objection could not be entertained. Consequently, the court dismissed the application, upholding the revisional court's order.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Maintainability - Objection as to maintainability of revision filed by complainant without leave of court cannot be raised for the first time in appeal unless failure of justice is shown - The applicant did not demonstrate any miscarriage of justice caused by the impugned order, hence the objection was not entertained (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the revisional court's order directing the trial court to issue witness summons can be challenged on the ground that the revision application was not maintainable for want of leave of the court, when such objection was not raised before the revisional court.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal application, holding that the objection regarding maintainability of the revision was not raised before the revisional court and the applicant failed to show any failure of justice caused by the impugned order.
Law Points
- Criminal Procedure Code
- 1973
- Section 397
- Section 401
- maintainability of revision by complainant without leave
- objection not raised before revisional court cannot be raised in appeal unless failure of justice shown
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (03) 155
Criminal Application (APL) No.348 of 2014
Applicant in person, Mr. M.M. Ekre (Addl. Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1/State), Mr. C.H. Jaltare (Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3)
Sunil s/o. Brijlal Chanchlani
State of Maharashtra, Smt. Mumtaz Shaikh w/o. Abdul Rehman Shaikh, Ravi s/o. Premchand Patil
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal application challenging revisional court's order directing trial court to issue witness summons.
Remedy Sought
The applicant sought to quash the order dated 10th March 2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Revision No.464/2012.
Filing Reason
The applicant contended that the revision application filed by the complainant without leave of the court was not maintainable.
Previous Decisions
The Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Revision No.464/2012 directed the trial court to issue witness summons as per list in application Exh.92 and record their evidence.
Issues
Whether the revisional court's order can be challenged on the ground that the revision was not maintainable for want of leave, when such objection was not raised before the revisional court.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicant argued that the revision application was directly filed by the complainant without leave of the court and hence was not maintainable.
The respondents did not make specific submissions as the court dismissed the application on the preliminary objection.
Ratio Decidendi
An objection as to the maintainability of a revision application not raised before the revisional court cannot be raised for the first time in appeal unless the applicant demonstrates that failure of justice has been occasioned by the impugned order.
Judgment Excerpts
The first objection of the applicant ... is that the revision application directly filed by the complainant without leave of the Court was not maintainable.
But, this objection was never taken before the Revisional Court and, therefore, now, it would not be permissible for the applicant to take this objection before this Court, unless it can be shown by the applicant that failure of justice has been occasioned by the impugned order.
Procedural History
The trial court had passed some order which was challenged by the complainant in Criminal Revision No.464/2012 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur. The revisional court directed the trial court to issue witness summons as per list in application Exh.92 and record their evidence. The applicant then filed the present criminal application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging that revisional order.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 397, Section 401
