( 1 ) THIS Criminal Petition is filed under S. 482, Cr. P. C. to quash the order dated 27-11-2001 in S. C. No. 251 of 2001 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, East Godawari District.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is accused No. 1 in S. C. No. 251 of 2001. The petitioner along with 3 others are being prosecuted for the offence under S. 307, IPC read with S. 34, IPC. The learned District and Sessions Judge by order dated 27-11-2001 made the following order. "a-1 - A-4 called. Present, Suo-motto reopened and I shall take the X-rays and evidence of radiologist will be useful in deciding the case. Issue summons to the radiologist for giving evidence and for filing X-rays. The prosecution to furnish the name and address particulars. Call on 11-12-2001. "

( 3 ) THE docket proceedings of the Court below shows that the prosecution evidence is closed on 23-11-2001 and the accused were examined on 2-11-2001 under S. 313 of the Cr. P. C. and posted the case for arguments on 9-11-2001 which under went adjournments on 9-11-2001, 13-11-2001 and on 16-11-2001 it was adjourned to 23-11-2001. On 23-11-2001 arguments were heard and the matter was posted to 27-11-2001 for judgment. On 27-11-2001 the aforesaid order has been passed stating that X-rays and evidence of radiologist will be useful in deciding the case and accordingly directed to issue summons to the radiologist for giving the evidence and for filing X-rays. Questioning the said order, this Criminal Petition is filed.

( 4 ) THE brief facts of the prosecution case is that A-1 and LW-3 are the own brothers and they have got lands at Rapaka village and in respect of water canal dispute the accused attacked LWs. 1 to 4 on 15-8-2000 and accordingly a crime was registered and after investigation the charge-sheet is filed. Against A-1 to A-4 offence under S. 307 read with S. 34, IPC is registered. 17 witnesses are cited on behalf of the prosecution. Witness No. 12 - Dr. K. Nagesh. Medical Officer, Govt. H. Q. Hospital, Rajahmundry was cited to speak out about his treatment to LWs. 1 to 4 and issuance of wound certificates. The said Doctor deposed in the chief examination that he examined LW-4 and found incised injury measuring 4" x 1/4" x bone deep on the sagittal suture of the wault of the skull between both parietal bones. He referred the injured for radiological examination. The Radiological opinion was that there was a depressed fracture of left partial region. He opined that the injury sustained by P. Venkateshwara Rao-LW. 4 was grievous in nature. He also examined P. Venkat Rao-LW-3 and stated that the Radiologist opined on the basis of X-ray taken that P. Venkat Rao-LW-3 sustained a fracture of right second metacarpal bone. He opined that the 3rd injury referred above sustained by LW-3 is grievous in nature. Similarly be examined two other injured persons and in the cross-examination he has stated that he had given his opinion on the basis of his examination and on the opinion given by the Radiologist with regard to the nature of the injuries. He further stated that he did not have the opinion given by the Radiologist and the Radiologist would have the opinion with him. The wound certificates Exs. P-12 to P-15 are the extracts from the accident register.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that during the course of arguments on 23-11-2001 the defence counsel argued regarding the reliability of medical evidence i. e. evidence of the Doctor and substantial lacunae were pointed out in his evidence and on that pointing out of the lacunae the learned District Judge suo-motu reopened the case and issued summons to the Radiologist for giving evidence and producing the X-ray by proceedings dated 27-11-2001 instead of pronouncing the judgment. He also submits that the entire record of the investigation and the evidence of the prosecution does not disclose about the Radiologist and his name and the order of the Court below in reopening the case callin