An Interlocutory Order Cannot Be Challenged in Revision: Himachal Pradesh High Court Rejects Plea in Cheque Dishonor Case

Admissibility Cannot Be Left for Argument When Law Clearly Bars It" – Himachal Pradesh High Court, in Ravi Kumar vs. Shakti Cholia, dismissed a revision petition challenging the trial court’s refusal to admit additional evidence in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). Justice Rakesh Kainthla, while delivering the judgment, held that an order refusing to allow additional evidence is an interlocutory order and, therefore, cannot be challenged in revision.

The court further ruled that admitting inadmissible evidence merely to reject it later would cause unnecessary delays in trial proceedings, defeating the principles of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023.

The case originated from a cheque dishonor complaint filed against Ravi Kumar by Shakti Cholia under Section 138 of the NI Act. The petitioner (Ravi Kumar) claimed that the cheque in question was forcibly taken from him and attempted to introduce a certified copy of a separate criminal complaint he had filed against Shakti Cholia under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 342, and 506 of the IPC.

When the trial court refused to admit this additional evidence, citing procedural delays and irrelevance, Ravi Kumar filed a revision petition before the High Court, arguing that his right to rebut the statutory presumption of consideration under Section 139 of the NI Act was being curtailed.

A Revision Against an Interlocutory Order is Not Maintainable
Justice Rakesh Kainthla rejected the petitioner’s plea, emphasizing that an order refusing to allow additional evidence is purely interlocutory and does not decide or conclude the case. He cited the Supreme Court’s rulings in Sethuraman vs. Ratamanickam (2009) 5 SCC 153 and Amar Nath vs. State of Haryana (1978 SCC (Cri) 10), reaffirming that: "Interlocutory orders are those which do not decide or touch upon the substantive rights of parties but are merely procedural. Revision against such orders is barred under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure."

The court further relied on Vishwa Narayan Goswami vs. Ram Rattan Sharma (2009 HLJ 552), where it was held that: "An order passed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order and revision against it is not maintainable."

Additionally, the court cited the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s ruling in M. Koteswara Reddy vs. State of A.P., 2019 SCC OnLine AP 318, which reaffirmed that: "Applications for additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C. are interlocutory in nature and do not warrant revisional intervention."

"A Barred Evidence Cannot Be Introduced Just to Reject It Later" – Admissibility Under the BSA

Beyond the procedural issue of maintainability, the court also examined the substance of the petitioner’s request to introduce additional evidence. Ravi Kumar had sought to bring on record a separate complaint he had filed, alleging that the cheque was obtained under coercion.

However, the High Court ruled that such an admission could not be introduced by the petitioner himself, as per Section 19 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023. Justice Kainthla noted:

"Section 19 of the BSA explicitly states that an admission can be used against the person making it, but it cannot be introduced in his favor, except under three specific exceptions. The petitioner’s case does not fall under any of these exceptions, making the evidence inadmissible."

The court dismissed the argument that admissibility could be debated at the stage of final arguments, stating that:

"Admitting evidence that the law explicitly bars, just to reject it later, would not only delay the trial but also undermine the procedural discipline envisioned under the BSA."

The Himachal Pradesh High Court’s ruling in Ravi Kumar vs. Shakti Cholia reinforces two fundamental legal principles—that interlocutory orders cannot be challenged in revision, and that inadmissible evidence cannot be introduced into record merely to be rejected later.

By dismissing the revision petition and upholding the trial court’s refusal to admit additional evidence, the judgment reaffirms the need for efficient trial proceedings and strict adherence to evidentiary laws under the BSA.

As the court aptly noted: "Judicial efficiency demands that irrelevant or inadmissible evidence should not be allowed to enter the record under the guise of procedural fairness. Trials must focus on substantive justice, not on unnecessary procedural delays."
 

Date of Decision: 10 March 2025