SETHURAMAN versus RAJAMANICKAM

SETHURAMAN versus RAJAMANICKAM

The High Court erred in allowing applications for production of documents and recalling the witness without issuing notice to the complainant and in entertaining a revision against interlocutory orders, which is barred by Section 397(2) CrPC.

Parties
Appellant: Sethuraman; Respondent: Rajamanickam
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order on Criminal Revision
Outcome
Appeals allowed; impugned judgment of High Court set aside
Legal Topics
Criminal Revision, Interlocutory Orders, Production of Documents, Recalling Witness
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Criminal Revision Interlocutory Orders Production of Documents Recalling Witness

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sethuraman

Appellant

Rajamanickam

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order on Criminal Revision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in allowing production of documents and recalling the witness without notice to complainant
  2. 2 Whether revision applications were maintainable against interlocutory orders under Section 397(2) CrPC

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in allowing applications for production of documents and recalling the witness without issuing notice to the complainant and in entertaining a revision against interlocutory orders, which is barred by Section 397(2) CrPC.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; impugned judgment of High Court set aside

Orders

  • High Court judgment is set aside
  • Trial Court orders rejecting applications under Sections 91 and 311 CrPC stand upheld