JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.C. Agarwal, J.—Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State. There is no need to issue notice to opposite party No. 2 - the complainant. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 11.1.2013 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar in S.T. No. 767 of 2011 (State v. Suleman and others) under Sections 376, 354 and 506 IPC, P.S. Surajpur, District Gautam Budh Nagar, whereby the application moved by the revisionist for disregarding the evidence of P.W. 2 (prosecutrix name withheld) was rejected. 2. The application was moved on the ground that during her examination-in-chief as well as in the cross-examination, her demeanor was noted by the Court and from her answers, she appears to be mentally retarded and did not have the capacity to give proper answers and is completely insane or of unsound mind. The application was rejected by the trial Court with the observations that P.W. 2 may not be brilliant or may be a bit retarded, but she was able to answer the questions properly and simply by her cries during cross-examination and inability to answer certain questions does not amount to unsoundness of mind. Learned trial judge further observed that the application was moved simply to preclude the victim of the crime from getting justice. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist contends that the witness was not even able to answer the question as to where her house is situated and she may not be a competent witness. Learned A.G.A., however, supported the impugned order. 4. If there was any doubt about the competency of the witness, it could have been tested before her statement started. The observations made in the statement of P.W. 2 cannot be said to mean that the witness was unable to understand the questions or to give rational answers. However, at this stage, it would not be proper for this Court as well as the trial Court to make any observation or finding regarding the competence of P.W. 2 and the matter has to be decided by the trial Court at the conclusion of the trial by means of a reasoned judgment. 5. The application has, prima facie, maliciously been filed simply to preempt the Court to give an opinion regarding credibility of P.W. 2. 5. The application has, prima facie, maliciously been filed simply to preempt the Court to give an opinion regarding credibility of P.W. 2. Moreover, the impugned order is an interlocutory order and is not subject to challenge by means of a revision and the revision is barred by Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. The revision is accordingly dismissed. ——————