The main legal point established in the judgment is that an order that does not adjudicate on the rights of the parties and is of a purely interim or temporary nature is considered an interlocutory order against which no Revision is maintainable.

K.S. Kumaran, J. - Respondent herein, M/s. Amritsar Overseas filed a Criminal complaint against the accused petitioner herein under Sections 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 I.P.C. The complainant's witness No.3 was being examined. Through him certain documents were sought to be introduced into evidence on the side of the complainant. This was objected to by the petitioner on the ground that the documents were not specifically mentioned in the complaint, nor copies thereof were filed at the time of the complaint and that these documents were not relied upon even at the time of the pre-summoning evidence. This objection taken by the petitioner-accused was sustained by the learned Additional C.J.M., Amritsar on 2.12.1999. Against this order declining to take on record these documents as evidence on the side of the complainant, the complainant filed Criminal Revision No. 6 of 2000 before the Sessions Court, Amritsar. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar held that the order passed by the learned Additional C.J.M. is against the provisions of Section 254(2) Cr.P.C., which provides that the Magistrate may on the application of the prosecution or the accused, issue summons to witness to produce any document or other thing. The learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that the scope of Section 254(2) Cr.P.C. is very vast enabling the prosecution or the complainant or the accused to summon any document to support his or her case, even after the framing of the charge, but before the complainant's examination is concluded. Ultimately, the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the Revision Petition setting aside the order of the learned Additional C.J.M. and directing him to permit the complainant to produce all the documents relevant to the case during the course of his evidence. Aggrieved, the petitioner-accused has come forward with this Criminal Revision Petition.

2.1 have heard the Counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that in as much as the complainant had not mentioned about these documents in his complaint, nor had produced the copies thereof along with the complaint and had also not relied upon these documents at the presummoning stage, the complainant, if at all, could have filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. only. He, therefore, contends that the learned Magistrate was right in declining the request of the complainant. He contends that the complainant had not even filed an application for reception of these documents into evidence.

4. But, in my view, the fact that the complainant had not mentioned about these documents in his complaint and that he had not produced or relied upon these documents at the time of the evidence in the pre-summon-ing stage, cannot be a ground for declining permission to introduce these documents into evidence. As has been rightly held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the provisions of Section 254(2) Cr.P.C. enable the Court to summon any document on an application by the prosecution or the accused. Therefore, had the complainant filed an application for permission to produce these documents into evidence, the Court would be justified in allowing the documents to be received into evidence subject to proof and relevancy, in the circumstances of this case, where the examination of the witness of the complainant only was in progress at that stage. But the contention is that the complainant has not filed any such application. Therefore, in my view, the complainant should have filed an application under Section 254(2) Cr.P.C. for reception of these documents into evidence.

5. But, the vital objection taken by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that when the learned Additional C.J.M. had declined permission to the complainant to introduce these documents into evidence, the complainant was not entitled to file a Revision petition against the same as it was only an