Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 50 (HP)

SURESH KUMAR GUPTA v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2002-03-11

M.R.VERMA

body2002
JUDGMENT M. R. Verma, J. (Oral) :- This revision petition under Sections 397,401 read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 973 (hereafter referred to as the Code) is directed against the order dated 15.1.2002 passed by the learned special Judge. Solan whereby the application of the petitioner/accused (hereafter referred to as the petitioner) for recalling of the prosecution witnesses, namely. Jagan Nath and Inder Singh for their further cross-examination has been dismissed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the earned Assistant Advocate General for the respondent. 3. The preliminary question, which arises for determination in his revison petition, is whether a revision petition is competent and maintainable against an order passed by the Court below on an application under Section 311 of the Code for grant of permission to recall the witnesses for further cross-examination. 4. While dealing with a similar question in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Virender Kumar & Ors.. 2001 (2) C.L.R. 469:2001 (1) Current Law Journal (HP) 543. this Court held as under:- "4. Sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the Code provides that the powers of revison conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 397 shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceedings. 5. An interlocutory order is one which is passed at some intermediate stage of a proceeding generally to advance the cause of justice for the final determination of the case. The rejection of a application for summoning a particular document/witness as in this case, is not a final and conclusive order and is purely an interlocutory order which did not decide the matter finally between the parties. Therefore, a revision petition against the impugned order is not maintainable in view of the bar created by sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the code." 6. In view of the above ratio, the present revision petition is not maintainable. 7. As a result, this revision petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Cr. M P. No. 40 of 2002: 8. In view of the dismissal of the cr. revision petition, this application is dismissed. The interim stay order dated 1.2.2002 stands vacated.