Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Jignesh Prakash Shah, filed a Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) before the Bombay High Court, challenging an order dated 28th September 2017 passed by the Special Judge for CBI, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Bombay, in Misc. Application No.596 of 2017. The background of the case involves a report filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, BS&FC, Mumbai on 12th February 2014 against officials of PEC Limited, NSEL, FTIL, and private defaulters including M/s.Brinda Commodities Pvt. Ltd., M/s.Tavishi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., M/s.Dullison Cereals and Dullison Foods, relating to the NSEL scam. The applicant, who was not an accused in the case, sought to challenge the order of the Special Judge which had directed further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC. The main legal issues considered by the court were: (1) whether the revisional court can interfere with an order directing further investigation at the pre-cognizance stage; (2) whether the applicant had locus standi to challenge such an order; and (3) whether the order was interlocutory and thus not revisable under Section 397(2) CrPC. The applicant argued that the order was illegal and that he had a right to be heard as a person whose name was mentioned in the FIR. The respondents, CBI and State, contended that the revision was not maintainable as the order was interlocutory and the applicant had no locus standi. The court analyzed the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC, noting that it is limited to correcting patent errors or jurisdictional defects and cannot be used to interfere with investigation orders. The court also held that the applicant, not being an accused at the investigation stage, had no locus standi to challenge the order. Further, the court observed that orders passed during investigation, including those under Section 173(8) CrPC, are interlocutory in nature and not subject to revision under Section 397(2) CrPC. The court also noted that the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to circumvent the bar under Section 397(2) CrPC. Consequently, the court dismissed the revision application, holding that the applicant had no locus standi and that the order was not revisable.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Revisional Jurisdiction - Section 397 CrPC - Scope - The revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC is limited to correcting patent errors of law or fact or jurisdictional defects; it cannot be used to interfere with interlocutory orders or orders passed during investigation. (Paras 10-12) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Locus Standi - Pre-cognizance Stage - An applicant who is not an accused at the stage of investigation has no locus standi to challenge an order directing further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC. (Paras 13-15) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Investigation Orders - Interlocutory Nature - Orders passed during investigation, including orders under Section 173(8) CrPC, are interlocutory in nature and not subject to revision under Section 397(2) CrPC. (Paras 16-18) D) Criminal Procedure Code - Inherent Powers - Section 482 CrPC - The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked to circumvent the bar under Section 397(2) CrPC or to grant relief that is not available in revision. (Para 19)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the revisional court can interfere with an order passed by the Special Judge directing further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC, and whether the applicant has locus standi to challenge such an order at the pre-cognizance stage.
Final Decision
The Bombay High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Application, holding that the applicant had no locus standi to challenge the order and that the order was interlocutory and not revisable under Section 397(2) CrPC.
Law Points
- Revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC is limited to correcting patent errors or jurisdictional defects
- not to interfere with investigation orders
- locus standi to challenge investigation is limited to accused only after cognizance
- inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to circumvent revisional limitations
- investigation orders are interlocutory and not revisable under Section 397(2) CrPC.
