CRL.REV.P. 2/2015 $~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P. 2/2015 DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms. Mala Sharma SPP and Mr. Aman Tripathi, Adv. versus M/S CIS EXPORTS PVT LTD & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Kartik Pandey, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 03.07.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Department of Customs under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, ‘CrPC’), assailing the order dated 18.11.2014 (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned ASJ, New Delhi, in Criminal Revision No. 68/2014 titled “M/s CIS Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Commissioner of Customs”. By the said order, the learned ASJ suspended the non-bailable warrants (hereinafter, ‘NBWs’) issued against Respondent No. 3. 3. The brief background is that the Petitioner/Department had filed a complaint against the Respondents for offences punishable under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. Cognizance was taken by the learned ACMM/CMM, New Delhi in 2013. Since Respondent No. 3 was not This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/07/2026 at 10:26:49 CRL.REV.P. 2/2015 appearing before the learned Trial Court, NBWs were issued against him. The applications moved on behalf of Respondent No. 3 seeking cancellation/stay of the NBWs were rejected by the learned Trial Court. The said orders came to be challenged before the learned ASJ, who passed the impugned order dated 18.11.2014. 4. Mr. Satish Aggarwala, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Petitioner/Department, submits that the learned ASJ could not have entertained the revision petition, inasmuch as an order issuing NBWs or refusing to cancel/stay NBWs is an interlocutory order. He submits that the bar contained in Section 397(2) CrPC would, therefore, operate. Reliance is placed upon Hira Lal v. State of U.P. and Anr., 2007 SCC OnLine All 1303, to submit that an order issuing NBWs has been held to be interlocutory in nature and, therefore, a revision against such an order is not maintainable. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents submits that the impugned order does not call for interference at this stage. He submits that the order was passed in the year 2014, almost twelve years have elapsed thereafter, the trial has proceeded, and Respondent No. 3 is stated to be appearing before the learned Trial Court. He further submits that Respondent No. 3 was, at the relevant time, in custody in proceedings under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter, ‘COFEPOSA Act’) and, therefore, the NBWs directly affected his personal liberty. 6. Reliance is also placed upon P.A. Saleem and Others v. State and Another, 1994 SCC OnLine Mad 860, and Laishram Gojendra Singh and Others v. Langpoklakpam Gunamani Singh and Others, 2015 SCC OnLine Mani 39, to buttress the submission that an order relating to NBWs, where This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/07/2026 at 10:26:49 CRL.REV.P. 2/2015 personal liberty is directly affected, cannot be treated as a purely interlocutory order. 7. The Court has heard learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Respondents. 8. The submission of the Petitioner/Department proceeds on the premise that the orders relating to issuance or continuance of NBWs are purely interlocutory in nature and, therefore, the revision before the learned ASJ was barred under Section 397(2) CrPC. The question, therefore, is whether the said premise can be accepted in the facts of the present case. 9. The expression “interlocutory order” under Section 397(2) CrPC cannot be understood merely with reference to the stage at which the order is passed. The nature of the order, its effect on the rights of the parties and the consequence which follows from it would have to be examined. 10. In P.A. Saleem (supra), the court has observed that where cancellation of a warrant is refused, the aggrieved person may avail the remedy of revision under Section 397 CrPC before the Court of Session or under Section 401 CrPC before the High Court. The said principle is consistent with the view taken in Laishram Gojendra Singh (supra), wherein it has been held that an order which substantially affects the rights of the accused cannot be treated as an “interlocutory order” merely because it is passed at an intermediate stage of the proceedings. 11. The Supreme Court in Honnaiah T.H. v. State of Karnataka and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1001, has held that an order which is merely procedural or purely interlocutory would stand on a different footing from an intermediate order affecting important rights of the parties. The Court further held that revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC can be exercised This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/07/2026 at 10:26:49 CRL.REV.P. 2/2015 where interference is required for correction of manifest illegality or for preventing gross miscarriage of justice. 12. Considering the contentions advanced by the parties and the legal position emerging from the aforesaid decisions, this Court is of the considered view that the bar contained under Section 397(2) CrPC would not apply where the order, though passed during the pendency of the proceedings, has a direct bearing on the important rights of the party concerned. Since an order relating to the issuance or suspension of NBWs directly impacts the personal liberty of the accused, such an order cannot be treated as a purely interlocutory order so as to attract the embargo under Section 397(2) CrPC. 13. The reliance placed by the Petitioner/Department on Hira Lal (supra) does not persuade this Court to interfere with the impugned order. In the present case, the NBWs were issued against Respondent No. 3 himself. The plea before the learned ASJ was also that Respondent No. 3 was already in custody under proceedings initiated under the COFEPOSA Act. Thus, the order under challenge was not merely procedural in nature but had a direct bearing on the personal liberty of Respondent No. 3. 14. In these circumstances, this Court is not persuaded to hold that the learned ASJ committed any jurisdictional error in entertaining the revision petition and suspending the NBWs. Moreover, the impugned order has remained in operation since 2014. The trial has proceeded thereafter and Respondent No. 3 is stated to be appearing before the learned Trial Court. At this stage, interference with the impugned order would not advance the proceedings in any manner. 15. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/07/2026 at 10:26:49 CRL.REV.P. 2/2015 16. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J JULY 3, 2026/b/m This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/07/2026 at 10:26:49