Honble SHETHNA, J.–Following important questions of law are arising in this petition:-

(1) Whether order passed by the Trial Court rejecting an application under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused persons, to recall the witnesses for the purpose of further examination is an interlocutory order or not?

(2) Whether, this Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against such interlocutory order when the Sessions Court has rejected the revision filed by the accused solely on the ground that no revision would be maintainable u/Sec. 397(2) Cr. P.C.?

(3) Whether this Court can entertain the petition against such interlocutory orders passed by the trial court under Section 482 Cr. P.C.?

(2). The present accused petitioners along with one more accused are facing trial for offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 120-B I.P.C. of committing forgery and cheating the Government for lakhs of rupees way back in 1981 before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, CBI cases, Jodhpur. The case is pending against them since 1982 before the Court at Jaipur which was later on transferred to Jodhpur.

(3). It is unfortunate that nearly a period of 20 years has passed after the commission of an offence and the case registered against them but same is yet not concluded for several reasons, even though the prosecution closed its evidence after examining as many as 25 witnesses who were effectively cross examined in detail by the counsel for the accused.

(4). The application dated 16.1.2001 was filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the present accused petitioners before the trial court for recalling 3 witnesses namely, (1) Satish Chandra Kik, (2) Subash Chandra Mishra and (3) Satish Chandra Saxena P.W. 16, P.W. 17 and P.W. 19 respectively for the purpose of further cross-examination on the ground that by mistake, they were not properly cross-examined regarding the disputed documents. If the said request is not granted, then it will adversely affect the accused in their defence. The said application was straneously objected by learned public prosecutor before the trial court on the ground that by 16.1.2001, as many as 25 witnesses were examined and the aforesaid 3 witnesses were also cross-examined at great length by the learned counsel appearing for the accused and it is only with a view to delay the trial, which is pending before the trial court since 1982, this application is submitted. It was also objected on the ground that the intention of the learned counsel for the accused is to delay the proceedings on one or the other grounds and in the past also, time and again, number of revisions were filed by him on behalf of the accused which were also dismissed, therefore, to recall the witnesses in this case, would not be helpful to the Court to arrive at the just decision in the case.

(5). The Trial Court after considering the entire material on record came to the conclusion that all the aforesaid witnesses were cross examined in detail by the learned counsel for the accused and the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was submitted in the case only with an intention to delay the trial. The Trial Court also considered the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in case of Rajendra Prasad vs. Narcotic Cell (1), cited by learned counsel for the petitioners and held that the facts of Rajendra Prasads case (supra) have no relevance whatsoever in the instant case as the facts of that case were totally different than the facts of the present case and accordingly, the trial court dismissed the application u/Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. on 7.3.2001.

(6). This order was challenged by the petitioners in revision before the Court of Sessions Judge, Jodhpur which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on 24.4.2001 only on the ground of its maintainability because according to him, the impugned order passed by the trial court was an interlocutory one and no revision would lie against such order as provided under Sec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document