SETHURAMAN versus RAJAMANICKAM

Citation: [2009] 4 S.C.R. 510 · Decided: 18-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2009] 4 S.C.R 510 
SETHURAMAN 
V. 
RAJAMANICKAM 
Criminal Appeal No.486-487 of 2009 
MARCH 18, 2009 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
s. 397(2) - Criminal revision - Challenging order of trial 
c 
court rejecting applications ulss 91 and 311 for production of 
documents and recalling the witness - Allowed by High Court 
without giving notice to complainant - HELD: Documents 
sought for, being personal documents of complainant, he 
should have been given an opportunity of hearing - Besides, 
o 
orders passed by trial court on applications u/ss 91 and 311 
being interlocutory in nature, revision applications were not 
maintainable - Orders of High Court set aside - Practice and 
Procedure. 
In a complaint case arising out of dishonour of 
E 
cheque, after the complainant had been examined and 
cross-examined, the accused filed applications u/s 91 and 
s.311 CrPC seeking direction to produce the Bank Pass 
Books, Income Tax Accounts and LDS deposit receipts 
of the complainant and to recall him for cross-
F 
examination. The trial court rejected the applications, but 
the High Court in criminal revisions filed by the accused, 
allowed the applications. Aggrieved, the complainant filed 
the appeals. 
G 
H 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The High Court did not even issue notice 
to the appellant/complainant and held that the production 
of the documents sought for would cause no prejudice 
510 
,, 
-
SETHURAMAN V. RAJAMANICKAM 
511 
to him. The documents in possession of the appellant/ A 
complainant were his personal documents; their 
production was rejected by the trial court, and the High 
Court before ordering their production, should have 
atleast given a hearing to the appellant/complainant. He 
could have shown, firstly, that no such documents existed B 
or that there was no basis for the production of those 
documents, particularly, in view of the fact that he was 
not even cross-examined in respect of those documents. 
[para 3] [513-8-C-D] 
1.2 The High Court also failed to consider that the c 
order passed by the trial -court refusing to call the 
documents u/s 91 CrPC and rejecting the application u/s 
311 Cr.P.C. to recall the witness, were interlocutory orders 
and as such, the revision against those orders was 0 
clearly barred u/s 397(2) Cr.P.C. The trial court, in its 
common order, had clearly mentioned that the cheque 
was admittedly signed by the respondent/accused and 
the only defence that was raised, was that his signed 
cheques were lost and that the appellant/complainant had E 
falsely used one such cheque. The trial court also 
recorded a finding that the documents were not 
~ necessary. This order did not, in any manner, decide 
anything finally. [para 4] [513-E-F-G] 
1.3 In the circumstances, the High Court could not F 
have interfered in revisional jurisdiction. The judgment of 
the High Court is clearly incorrect in law and is set aside. 
[para 4] [514-8] 
-1 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION :Criminal Appeal G 
No. 486-487 of 2009 
From the Judgement and Order dated 18.11.2004 of the 
Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Criminal Revision Case No. 
1823 & 1824 of 2004. 
H 
512 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 4 S.CR 
A 
S. Ravi Shankar, Yamunah Nachiar. Jaya Kedia, for the 
B 
Appellant. 
Manish Kumar Saran, for the Respondent 
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 
V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 
1. Leave granted. 
2. In these appeals, the common order passed by the 
c 
Learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in three Criminal 
Revisions, is in challenge. By the instant order, the Learned 
Single Judge set aside the three orders passed by the Trial 
Court dated 26.7.2004 in Crl.M.P. No. 3057 of 2004 in CC. 
No. 216 of 2003 and dated 1.4.2004 in Crl.M.P. Nos. 4184 and 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
4185 of 2004 in C.C. No. 215 of 2003, and allowed those 
Crl.M.Ps. Shortly stated, the appellant herein had filed a criminal 
complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 
(hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.PC.' for short), complaining 
therein that a cheque signed by the respondent and given for 
returning the amount of Rs.2 lakhs, which was a loan, was 
bounced and inspite of the notice given thereafter, the accused 
(respondent herein) had failed to return the money. A Trial .. 
ensued on the basis of this complaint and the complainant 
(appellant herein) was examined as a first witness for the 
prosecution on 24.8.2004. He was cross-examined

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.