Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra, through the DCB CID Unit I, filed a Criminal Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging an order dated 17th August 2015 passed by the Learned NDPS Special Judge, City & Sessions Court, Greater Bombay, in NDPS Special R.A. No. 88 of 2015. The impugned order rejected the prosecution's application for resending the remand application in connection with C.R./Spl. LAC No.16/2015 registered with Marine Drive Police Station. The respondents were accused in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The prosecution had sought to resend the remand application to the court, but the Special Judge rejected it. The State then filed a revision petition before the Sessions Court, which was dismissed as not maintainable. Thereafter, the State approached the High Court. The court examined whether the order rejecting the application for resending the remand application was an interlocutory order and whether the revision petition was maintainable. The court held that the order was not interlocutory as it did not finally determine the rights of the parties, but the revision petition was barred by limitation as it was filed beyond 90 days from the date of the order, and no application for condonation of delay was filed. The court further held that the writ petition under Article 227 was not maintainable as the order did not suffer from any jurisdictional error or perversity. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Interlocutory Order - Revision - Section 397 CrPC - The order rejecting an application for resending the remand application is not an interlocutory order as it does not finally decide the rights of the parties but is a step in the proceeding; however, the revision petition filed by the State was barred by limitation as it was filed beyond 90 days from the date of the order. (Paras 10-12) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Limitation - Revision - Section 397 CrPC read with Article 131 of Limitation Act - The period of limitation for filing a revision petition is 90 days from the date of the order; the State's revision was filed after 90 days and no application for condonation of delay was filed, hence the revision was not maintainable. (Paras 13-15) C) Constitution of India - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 - The High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot interfere with an order which does not suffer from any jurisdictional error or perversity; the Special Judge's order rejecting the application for resending the remand application was a discretionary order and did not warrant interference. (Paras 16-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order passed by the Special Judge rejecting the application for resending the remand application is an interlocutory order and whether the revision petition filed by the State was maintainable and within limitation.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal writ petition, holding that the order rejecting the application for resending the remand application was not an interlocutory order, but the revision petition was barred by limitation as it was filed beyond 90 days from the date of the order, and no application for condonation of delay was filed. The writ petition under Article 227 was also not maintainable as the order did not suffer from any jurisdictional error.
Law Points
- Interlocutory order
- Revision under Section 397 CrPC
- Limitation for revision
- Maintainability of writ petition under Article 227
- Resending of remand application
- NDPS Act
