The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to reject applications under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and uphold the jurisdiction of the court to transfer the case and proceed with the trial.

SHRI NARAYAN SHUKLA, J.Heard Mr. Daya Shanker Mishra, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Mr.-Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well - as Mr. Sharad Dixit, learned Advocate appearing for the victim.

2. The revisionist has challenged the order dated 11th of February, 2011, passed by the Special Judge (Gangster Act), Gonda in Sessions Trial No. 146 of 2002, rejecting the revisionist's application being application No. Kha-219. Further he has also challenged the subsequent order dated 14th of February, 2011, passed by the Court concerned, whereby the revisionist's request to provide time for additional arguments has been rejected.

3. Upon perusal of the record it appears that the revisionist moved an application' under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon P.W.1 to P.W.5, namely, Ram Pujan, Munna Ram, Anand Prakash, Shiv Das and Amar Nath for re-cross examination, which has been rejected by the Court.

4. Upon perusal of the record it is obvious that earlier also the revisionist moved an application being application No. 91-Kha for summoning those witnesses for their re-examination, which had already been rejected on 25th of September, 2008, whereas the revisionist did not choose to challenge the said order, rather after two years again moved the application in question.

5. Keeping in view the past conduct of the revisionist during the course of trial as he has not co-operated with the proceedings, the Trial Court has expressed its opinion to the effect that the revisionist is not interested in disposal of the matter, rather he is interested in lingering on the case for one or another reason by moving such an application, which is fortified by his conduct as when h€ could not succeed upon the said application, he sought further time for an additional argument, even after arguments are over in the matter, which has been rejected by the Court concerned, as the revisionist is involved in a heinous crime like murder. The revisionist is on bail that is why he is making his all efforts to delay the trial.

6. The learned Additional Government Advocate raised objection against the maintainability of the revision on the ground that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam,1 has held that the order passed by the Trial Court, refusing to call the witnesses and documents and rejecting the application under section 311 of he Code of Criminal Procedure, was interlocutory in revision and as such the revision against the said order is clearly barred under section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. In support of his submission he has also cited the following decisions:(1) Asif Hussain v. State of U.P. and another.

(2) Hanuman Ram v. State of Rajasthan and others.

7. In reply, on the point of maintainability, the learned Counsel for the revisionist has cited the decision of Mahabir Singh and another v. Emperor, but I am of the view that once the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the order passed on the application moved under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not revisable, there was no occasion to deviate from the aforesaid dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in view of the settled view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no further discussion is needed. .

8. The learned Counsel for the revisionist further submitted that the principles of res judicata as enumerated in section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure or the general principles thereof will have no application in a criminal procedure, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devendra and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another.

9. Without discussing the aforesaid preposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the view that the revisionist kept mum for two years and as such he accepted the earlier order, but after a considerable delay, he again raised the same plea, which does not appear reasonable and bona fide keeping in view the revisionist's conduct in the