Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This petition challenges order dated 5.2.2001 whereby the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, permitted the State to examine Dr. P.K. Gupta by way of additional evidence. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order amounts to filling in lacuna in the prosecution case. I am unable to agree. The revisional Court was satisfied that in the interest of justice, additional evidence was required. Reliance is placed on a judgment of this Court in Bhagwan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1988(2) PLR 46 : [1988(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 916 (Pb. & Hry.)]. 3. The said judgment is on its own facts and the revisional Court rightly distinguished the same in view of subsequent Supreme Court judgment in Rajendra Prasad v. The Narcotic Cell, 1999(3) Recent Criminal Reports 440 : [1999(3) All India Criminal Law Reporter 36 (SC)]. 4. It was also contended that revision petition was not maintainable as the order of the trial Court was interlocutory. Reliance is placed on a judgment of this Court in V.P. Gurela v. Jagdish Chander Rahela, 1988(2) Recent Criminal Reports 179 [1988(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 490 (Pb. & Hry.)]. 5. I need not to go into this question, as interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not called for having regard to the facts of this case. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.