Back
2011 Supreme(All) 2524
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.
Ajai Dikshit -Appellant
Versus
State of U.P.and another -Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 436 of 2006
Decided On : 12-09-2011
Counsel for the Petitioner:Prem Shanker and Dharmendra Singh., Counsel for the Respondents:Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, Govt. Advocate.
Orders summoning or refusing to summon witnesses are interlocutory and do not decide any substantive remedy of the litigating parties.
Headnote:
Revision Dismissed - Criminal Revision - The court dismissed the criminal revision against the order allowing the application under section 311, Cr.P.C. filed by the opposite party No. 2, citing legal propositions that orders summoning or refusing to summon witnesses are interlocutory and do not decide any substantive remedy of the litigating parties.
Fact of the Case:
The criminal revision was filed against the order allowing the application under section 311, Cr.P.C. filed by the opposite party No. 2.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the revision not maintainable based on legal propositions that orders summoning or refusing to summon witnesses are interlocutory and do not decide any substantive remedy of the litigating parties.
Issues: The maintainability of the criminal revision under section 497/401, Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court cited legal propositions that orders summoning or refusing to summon witnesses are interlocutory and do not decide any substantive remedy of the litigating parties, leading to the dismissal of the revision.
Final Decision: The revision was dismissed as not maintainable based on the legal propositions cited.
None appeared on behalf of revisionist.
2. This Criminal Revision under section 497/401, Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 10.8.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-2, Unnao, by which he had allowed the application under section 311, Cr. P.C. filed by the opposite party No. 2.
3. Sri Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, the learned Additional Government Advocate raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the revision on the ground that order summoning or refusing to summon witnesses are interlocutory as they do not decide any substantive remedy of the litigating parties, which are in an issue at the trial. In support of his contention, learned Additional Government Advocate has cited the legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in case of Sethura-man v. Rajamanickam, 2009 (65) ACC 607 (SC) = 2009 (77) AIC 165 (SC). Asif Hussain v. State of U.P. and another, 2007 (57) ACC 1036 & Hanuman Ram v. State of Rajasthan and others.,2009 (64) ACC 895 (SC).
4. In view of the above legal proposition, this revision is not maintainable. It is accordingly dismissed.
Revision Dismissed.
