JUDGMENT Hon’ble Shamsher Bahadur Singh, J.—Supplementary-affidavit, filed today by learned counsel for the revisionist, is taken on record. 2. This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 17.1.2015 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Unnao in S.T. No. 128 of 2008 (State of U.P. v. Sajeevan Lal and others), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 504 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Auras, District Unnao. 3. On behalf of the revisionist Sarvesh Kumar, who is claiming himself to be juvenile at the time of occurrence of offences, an application paper No. 196-Kha has been moved with a prayer that Ram Sumer, Manager of Bhallar Bal Shiksha Niketan Nawaji Khera, Harauni, District Lucknow, who has already been examined on 4.10.2012, be summoned alongwith original scholar register pertaining to admission in the year 2000. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has filed a supplementary-affidavit today annexing the statement of aforesaid Ram Sumer, who has already been examined on 4.10.2012. In the statement he has very categorically stated that the admission register has been destroyed about 5-6 years back on account of excessive rain fall and falling of Kachchi Kothari of the school concerned. 5. On repeated query, learned counsel for the revisionist could not demonstrate how the impugned order, which is an interlocutory order, is revisable. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam, 2009 (65) ACC 607 (SC) and Hanuman Ram v. State of Rajasthan and others, 2009 (64) ACC 895 (SC), has propounded that the orders summoning or refusing to summon witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. as it does not decide any substantive right of litigating parties. The above view has also been followed by this High Court in the case of Ajai Dikshit v. State of U.P. and another, 2011 (75) ACC 388 (All) (LB) and in Asif Hussain v. State of U.P., 2007 (57) ACC 1036 (All) (DB). 7. In view of the above law laid down and when the admission register has been lost, no witness can be compelled to produce a lost document. 8. In view of above discussions, the revision is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly, dismissed. ——————