JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 04.09.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track) No. 9, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur(hereinafter referred to as the Lower Revisional Court) in Criminal Revision Petition No. 07/2012, whereby the revision petition filed by complainant/Respondent No. 2 has been allowed and the order dated 16.05.2009 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur(hereinafter referred to as the Trial Court) passed in Case No. 640/2008 has been set aside, whereby learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the complainant-Respondent No. 2 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for examining Shri Satya Kumar Sihag, Advocate in the present case. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the present case relates to the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act(hereinafter referred to as the Act) in connection with dishonouring of the cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/-. It is admitted fact that the matter was finally argued by both the parties on 06.02.2009 before the Trial Court and the counsel for the petitioner submitted written arguments before the learned Trial Court and learned counsel for the complainant-Respondent No. 2 took time to give reply to the written arguments. Thereafter, the complainant-Respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for calling Shri Satya Kumar Sihag, Advocate in defence. After hearing both the parties, learned Trial Court vide order dated 16.05.2009 dismissed the application moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Against that order, a revision petition was filed by the complainant/Respondent No. 2 before the Lower Revisional Court. Lower Revisional Court without issuing notice to the petitioner, vide order dated 30.05.2009 allowed the revision petition and directed learned Trial Court to record the statement of Shri Satya Kumar Sihag. Thereafter, the petitioner, being aggrieved with the order dated 30.05.2009 passed by the Lower Revisional Court, preferred a revision petition before this Court and Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 902/2009(Rajesh Maheshwari v. State of Rajasthan) vide order dated 06.04.2012 , partly allowed the revision petition. Relevant portion of the order dated 06.04.2012 reads as under: " In view of above and without going into the merits of the case, it is deemed just and proper to partly allow this revision petition. Relevant portion of the order dated 06.04.2012 reads as under: " In view of above and without going into the merits of the case, it is deemed just and proper to partly allow this revision petition. The impugned order dated 30.5.2009 passed by the learned revisional court is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track) No. 9, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur to decide the revision petition afresh after giving opportunity to both the sides. 3. After passing aforesaid order, learned Lower Revisional Court again allowed the revision petition vide impugned order dated 04.09.2012. Being aggrieved by the order dated 04.09.2012, this revision petition has been filed by the accused-petitioner before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that order passed by the Lower Revisional Court is illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside. Order of dismissal of application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order and no revision lies against that interlocutory order, despite that learned Lower Revisional Court has passed the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his arguments, has placed reliance on decision rendered by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam, 2009 Cr.L.J. 2247 . 5. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2/complainant supported the order dated 04.09.2012 passed by the Lower Revisional Court and contended that the order passed by the Lower Revisional Court is just and proper and no interference is required in the same. 6. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully perused the orders passed by the courts below and material available on record. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sethuraman(Supra) held that revision against the order rejecting application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the witness was the order of interlocutory nature, in which case, under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C., revision petition was clearly not maintainable and in such circumstances the learned Judge could not have interfered in his revisional jurisdiction. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sethuraman(Supra) held that revision against the order rejecting application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the witness was the order of interlocutory nature, in which case, under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C., revision petition was clearly not maintainable and in such circumstances the learned Judge could not have interfered in his revisional jurisdiction. 8. So, it is clear that in this case, learned Trial Court has passed the order on an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and revision would not lie against that interlocutory order passed by the learned Trial Court and the order passed by the Lower Revisional Court dated 04.09.2012 is illegal, as the revision filed against the order passed by the Trial Court before the Lower Revisional Court is not maintainable, as the order passed by the Trial Court is an interlocutory order. 9. In view of above circumstances, revision petition filed by the accused-petitioner is liable to be accepted and the same is hereby accepted and order dated 04.09.2012 passed by learned Lower Revisional Court, whereby revision petition filed by the complainant/Respondent No. 2 was allowed, setting aside order dated 16.05.2009 passed by the Trial Court, is quashed and set aside and the order dated 16.05.2009 passed by the Trial Court is maintained. 10. Stay application stands disposed of.Petition Allowed. *******