Trial Court Order Rejecting Application Of Accused To Summon Witness Not Interlocutory, Accused Entitled To Prefer Revision: Tripura High Court

The Tripura High Court has held that order of the Trial Court in refusing the application of the accused to summon witnesses is a 'final order' and not an 'interlocutory order', entitling the accused to file a revision petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C). The Accused/Petitioner had filed a petition before the Trial Court to issue summons to two witnesses on 07.03.2024,. However, the Trial Court rejected the same as at the time of filing list of witnesses on 24.01.2024, the defence had not furnished the names of the two witnesses. The Accused/Petitioner preferred a Criminal Revision Petition against this order of the Trial Court. The State/Respondent, opposing the maintainability of the petition contended that the order of the Trail Court rejecting the claim of the accused is an interlocutory order and hence no revision can lie against such interlocutory order in view of Section 397 of Cr.P.C. Whereas, the Accused/Petitioner contended that the order of the Trial Court has prejudiced the right of the petitioner to substantiate his defence and as the order affected the right of the petitioner, it is not an interlocutory order. The bench of Justice Biswajit Palit looked into Section 233 of Cr.P.C, which provides for compelling the attendance of any witness by the Trial Court on application by the accused. Under the provision, the application of the accused may be rejected if the Court finds that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice. In the present case, the High Court observed that the Trial Court rejected the application of the accused only on the ground that the name of the witnesses was not listed at the time of filing list of witnesses on 24.01.2024. It held that “until and unless it is proved that the petition was submitted just for the purpose of vexation or defeating the ends of justice”, the Trial Court was bound to consider the petition of the accused to summon new witnesses. On the question of whether the order passed by the Trial Court is an interlocutory order, the High Court held that it is not an interlocutory order but a final order. It stated that by the order of the Trial Court, “right of the accused to adduce further evidence has been finally closed.” Therefore, the Accused/Petitioner is entitled to prefer a revision petition under Section 397 Cr.PC. It remarked: “Although it was the duty of the accused petitioner to submit the detailed list of witnesses at the time of submission before the Learned Trial Court below however, for proper adjudication of this case in my considered view, one opportunity should be given to the petitioner to take steps for issuing summons upon those witness as mentioned in his petition.” The High Court directed the Trial Court to issue summons to the two witnesses after the payment of cost by the Accused. Case title: Sri Arjun Debbarma vs. The State of Tripura, Crl. Rev. P. No.21 of 2024Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Trip) 5Click Here To Read Order

Trial Court Order Rejecting Application Of Accused To Summon Witness Not Interlocutory, Accused Entitled To Prefer Revision: Tripura High Court

Sanjana Dadmi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Trial Court Order Rejecting Application Of Accused To Summon Witness Not Interlocutory, Accused Entitled To Prefer Revision: Tripura High Court

Sanjana Dadmi

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers