Interlocutory orders in criminal procedure are not subject to revision under Sec.397 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The prosecution is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence, but not unlimited opportunities without end.

S. S. Sodhi J.

1. On November 1,1985, a first information report was lodged against the petitioner-Surinder Singh, on the statement of Smt. Santosh Malhotra, Head mistress of the Government High School, Ghatauli. The case being under Secs. 186,353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. When the case went up for trial, the evidence of two witnesses, namely; P. W.2 Jowala Singh and P. W.3 Tara Chand were recorded on February 12, 1987. Both these witnesses were declared, hostile and were then cross-examined by the public prosecutor. The case was, thereafter adjourned for the recording of the evidence of the investigating officer, Sub-Inspector Baljit Singh. As many as five opportunities were thereafter granted to the prosecution for the examination of the investigating officer. A last opportunity was granted to the prosecution for the examination of this witness when the case was adjoured to July 13, 1987. On this date, again Sub-Inspector Baljit Singh was not present, his summons having been received back unserved. The trial Magistrate, by his order passed on that day, closed the prosecution case and recorded the statement of the petitioner under Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.1973 and then adjourned the case for arguments to July 27, 1987.

2. Sometime thereafter on the same day that is July 13, 1987, two applications were filed by the complainant-Smt. Santosh Kumari Malhotra; one that the prosecution witnesses -Jowala Singh and Tara Chand be summoned as court-witness, as on the last date of hearing they had managed to get the case taken up for hearing without the case being properly called out and her counsel could not, therefore, appear when the witnesses were examined and the learned Public Prosecutor could not notice that they had given false evidence. Further, it was said that they were required to be summoned as court witnesses to prove their tape recorded statement to show that they had both given false evidence. The second application- was with regard to the Investigating Officer Sub- Inspector Baljit Singh namely: that non-bailable warrants be issued to secure his presence for the next date of hearing. Both these applications were dismissed by separate orders passed by the trial Magistrate on that every day.

3. The challenge now is to the order of the Sessions Judge, Jind of August 26, 1987 setting aside both the orders of the trial Magistrate one relating to the prosecution witnesses Jowala Singh and Tara Chand and the other with regard to the issuance of non-bailable warrants against the Investigating Officer. A direction being issued thereby that the prosecution be given a reasonable opportunity to further cross-examine, the said Jowala Singh and Tara Chand and also to summon Inspector Baljit Singh.

4. Mr. H. S. Rooda, Counsel for the petitioner has, at the very outset, raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the revision petition under Sec.397 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by contending that the orders of the trial Magistrate were patently interlocutory and no revision petition thus lay against them and the order of the Sessions Judge could not, therefore, be sustained. Cited in support being the judgment of Chief Justice S. S. Sandhawalia in Chander Bhan V/s. State of Haryana. The case there pertained to the order of the trial Magistrate allowing the production of additional evidence by the prosecution. It was held that an order of the nature passed in that case with regard to the examination of additional evidence or otherwise was patently an interlocutory one and the bar of Sec.397 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was, therefore, clearly attracted to it. This view was followed by this Court in Dalip Singh alias Daljit Singh and anr. V/s. The State of Punjab, which again was with regard to an order refusing to summon additional evidence.

5. Such thus being the settled position in law, there can be no escape from the conclusion that by their very natu