Inherent jurisdiction cannot be invoked to circumvent the statutory bar on a second revision.

M/s Fashion Dezire filed four complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against M/s Priknit Retails Ltd. and its directors, including the petitioners, alleging dishonour of cheques issued towards discharge of liability

During the defence-evidence stage, the petitioners sought summons to a bank official. The Trial Court declined, finding no ground to call the witness; the Sessions Court dismissed the petitioners’ revisions as barred because the order was interlocutory, and also considered the request on its merits

The petitioners then invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), stating that the drawer company had gone into liquidation and that the bank was their only source of relevant records

1. Whether the Trial Court’s decision to drop the bank official as a defence witness warranted interference under Section 528 BNSS

2. Whether the petitioners could invoke the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to challenge an interlocutory order despite the statutory bar on a second revision

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, governs the complaints alleging cheque dishonour

The Court referred to the statutory presumption applicable to the bank documents, as noted by the Sessions Court

Under Section 397(2) CrPC / Section 438(2) BNSS, as cited in the judgment, an interlocutory order is not revisable; the bar on a second revision cannot be circumvented by invoking the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS

The Court relied on Rajan Kumar Manchanda v. State of Karnataka, 1990 SCC (Cri) 537, in support of that principle

The High Court’s inherent jurisdiction is also limited where two courts below have reached concurrent findings, and interference requires grounds showing legal error or infirmity

The Court found that the cheques and return memos were already on record, and the petitioners could lead any other evidence permissible in law, including evidence concerning the chronology of the cheque series

It therefore found no infirmity in the lower courts’ refusal to summon the bank official, particularly given the statutory presumption concerning the bank documents

The order was interlocutory, and the petitioners could not use Section 528 BNSS to overcome the bar on a second revision. The Court also noted the nearly ten-month delay in approaching it and the concurrent findings of the courts below

Pending applications were disposed of