Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Ashokkumar Madanlal Rathi, challenged an order dated 15.11.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manora, in Regular Criminal Case No. 30/2009 (State vs. Ashokkumar and others). By the impugned order, the Magistrate allowed an application (Exh.99) filed by the prosecution seeking permission to file documents on record after the examination of ten prosecution witnesses. The applicant filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, contending that the order was passed without any reasons and was therefore unsustainable. The High Court noted that the order was not an interlocutory order, and hence a revision would not lie, but a petition under Section 482 was maintainable in light of the Supreme Court decision in Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam (2009) 5 SCC 153. The Court emphasized that reasons are the mirror of the judicial mind and that the impugned order was cryptic and devoid of any reasoning. The Court set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the Magistrate to pass a fresh reasoned order after hearing both sides. The Court did not express any view on the merits of the application or the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to allow or reject it.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Order - Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Maintainability - Order granting permission to file documents after examination of ten prosecution witnesses is not an interlocutory order and therefore revision does not lie, but petition under Section 482 is maintainable in view of Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam (2009) 5 SCC 153 - Held that the impugned order being non-interlocutory, the remedy under Section 482 is available (Paras 5-8). B) Criminal Procedure - Reasons - Necessity of Speaking Order - Order granting permission to file documents must contain reasons - Reasons are the mirror of the thinking process of the adjudicating authority - Held that the impugned order is cryptic and sans any reason, hence cannot be sustained (Paras 6-8). C) Criminal Procedure - Evidence - Filing of Documents after Prosecution Evidence - Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Permission to file documents after examination of ten prosecution witnesses requires justification - The Magistrate must apply mind and record reasons why such belated filing is allowed - Held that the order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Magistrate to pass a reasoned order (Paras 7-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class allowing the prosecution to file documents on record after examination of ten prosecution witnesses is sustainable in law when the order is devoid of any reasons.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the application, set aside the impugned order dated 15.11.2017, and remitted the matter back to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manora, to pass a fresh reasoned order after hearing both sides. Rule made absolute accordingly.
Law Points
- Section 482 CrPC maintainable against non-interlocutory order
- Order must contain reasons
- Reasons are mirror of judicial mind
- Permission to file documents after prosecution evidence closed requires justification
