IN THE COURT OF LD.
SESSION JUDGE, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI
In re: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 39/2023
(ARISING OUT OF CC NI ACT 3554/2017)
IN THE MATTER OF:-
M/S GREEN CARRIERS
& CONTRACTOR (DELHI) PVT. LTD.
.…REVISIONIST
VERSUS
M/S K.R.S. LINGUISTIC CARGO
& COURIER SERVICE PVT. LTD. .…ACCUSED
INDEX
SL.
NO PARTICULARS PAGES
.
1. Addendum/ Written Submissions To The
Revision Petition No. 39/2023
2. List of Judgments Cited
Filed Through
[SUNDARAM OJHA, SANJIV SINGH,
NEHA TRIPATHI & SHIKHAR SRIVASTAVA]
Counsels for the Respondent
8-C, Sector 105, Noida UP-201304
Ph. No.: 9554406719
Email: [email protected]
IN THE COURT OF LD. SESSION JUDGE, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 39/2023
(ARISING OUT OF CC (NI ACT) 3554/2017)
IN THE MATTER OF:-
M/S GREEN CARRIERS
& CONTRACTOR (DELHI) PVT. LTD.
.…REVISIONIST
VERSUS
M/S K.R.S. LINGUISTIC CARGO
& COURIER SERVICE PVT. LTD. .…ACCUSED
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS (ADDENDUM) TO THE REVISION
PETITION NO. 39/2023
REVISIONIST MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-
1. That the submissions made on behalf of the Accused is
superficial and ought to be outrightly rejected on the face of it.
The Accused has grossly failed in making out any plausible
line of objection or defence qua reply of the Captioned Revision
petition.
2. That whether the Order in question can be said to be the
interlocutory is the question passed before me for
consideration. The expression "interlocutory Order" is not
defined in Criminal Procedure Code. In Order to judge whether
the particular Order is interlocutory or otherwise, the Court
has to, making every endeavour, find out whether the Order in
question is interlocutory Order. If it is found that the Order
passed is purely interim or temporary in nature which does
not decide or touch the important rights and liabilities of the
parties and give a final shape to a particular point at a
particular stage during the course of the hearing the same can
be termed interlocutory Order. If the Order substantially
affects the rights and liabilities of the parties it would not be
the interlocutory Order. It may also be stated that intermediate
or quasi-final Order which determines a particular issue
finally at any stage of the hearing will not fall within the
ambits of 'interlocutory Order'.
3. That the nature of the Order is to be determined on the basis
of the impact which it would be having upon the rights of the
parties. Dismissal of the Revisionist’s Application under S. 311
finally determined his right to bring in his evidence on record.
4. That the stage at which the Order of dismissal has been
passed has also an final bearing on the fate of the Revisionist’s
case.
Date:
Place: New Delhi REVISIONIST
Filed Through
SUNDARAM OJHA, SANJIV SINGH,
NEHA TRIPATHI & SHIKHAR SRIVASTAVA
Counsels for the Respondent
8-C, Sector 105, Noida UP-201304
Ph. No.: 9554406719
LIST OF CASES
RELIED UPON BY THE REVISIONIST-COMPLAINANT
1. ON THE ISSUE OF MAINTAINABILITY OF SEC. 311
APPLICATION
1.1. Varsha Garg v. State of M.P., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 986
1.2. P.Sanjeeva Rao vs State Of A.P S.L.P (Crl.) Nos.4286-87
OF 2011)
1.3. Rajaram Prasad Yadav Vs State Of Bihar & Anr (2013 )14
SCC 461
1.4. Hanuman Ram v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2008)
15 SCC 652
1.5. Manju Devi Vs The State Of Rajasthan on 16 April, 2019
in Criminal Appeal No.688 OF 2019
1.6. Ratanlal vs Prahlad Jat on 15 September, 2017 in
Criminal Appeal No.499 Of 2014
2. ON THE ISSUE OF MAINTAINABILITY OF SEC. 311
APPLICATION
2.1. Rajeshbhai Chandubhai And Ors. vs State Of Gujarat 2001
CriLJ 3039, (2001) 3 GLR 1979
2.2. Mohan Lal Magan Lal Thacker vs State Of Gujarat 1968
SCR (2) 685
2.3. Madhu Limaye vs The State Of Maharashtra 1978 AIR 47,
1978 SCR (1) 749
