The court established that the rejection of a application to examine a material witness is revisable when its outcome could terminate proceedings, emphasizing the need for comprehensive evidence in the pursuit of justice.

JUDGMENT :

BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J.

1. A short but seminal question is involved in the instant Criminal Revision. The issue is as to whether any order rejecting an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an interlocutory order and, therefore, not revisable, even if the order of rejection of application for examination of an additional witness, not charge-sheeted or not named in the complaint, is found to be necessary for just decision of the case. Secondly, whether denial of examination of a material witness, whose evidence, the Court considers absolutely necessary for just decision of a criminal case.

2. It is easy to dismiss the instant criminal revision relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Honnaiah T.H. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 1147 of 2022), decided on 4^th of August, 2022.

3. It is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case that under Section 397 (2) of the Cr.P.C., the powers of revision can not be exercised in relation to an interlocutory order passed in any appeal, enquiry or trial or other proceedings.

4. On the same analogy, it is urged by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party that an order rejecting an application for examination of a non-charge-sheeted witness is an interlocutory order and, therefore, the said order is not revisable.

5. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party refers to another decision in the case of Girish Kumar Suneja v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2017) 14 SCC 809 , wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to make distinction between interlocutory order and intermediate order. It is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that an intermediate order is one which is interlocutory in nature, but when reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceeding and thereby resulting in a final order. According to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, an order of taking cognizance of an offence and summoning an accused and an order for framing charges, prima facie, are interlocutory in nature but when an order of taking cognizance and summoning an accused is reversed, it has the effect of terminating proceedings against that person resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Similarly, an order for framing of charges, if reversed, has the effect of discharging the accused person and resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Therefore, an intermediate order is one which, if passed in a certain way, the proceeding would terminate, but if passed in another way, the proceeding would continue. Therefore, an intermediate order, the effect of which terminates a criminal case finally, is held to be revisable.

6. As referred by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam , reported in (2009) 5 SCC 153 , held that an order under Section 91 and Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., seeking directions to produce the Bank pass books, income tax accounts and LDS deposit receipts of the appellant as also for recalling him for cross-examination is an interlocutory order and the revisional court would not have interfered against such order which is absolutely interlocutory in nature.

7. It is now necessary to describe factual background of the case in a short compass.

8. On 14.07.2018, the petitioner, Shailesh Kumar, submitted a written application to the Officer-in-Charge, Hisua Police Station, alleging that on the same day at approximately 03:30 P.M., he had gone to attend a Janta Darbar (public grievance forum) convened at the premises of Hisua Police Station, bein