Back
2014 Supreme(All) 2186
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II), J.
Lallan Khan - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. - 208 of 2014
Decided On : 13-05-2014
For the Petitioner: Saurabh Srivastava.
For the Respondents:Govt. Advocate.
An order under Section 311 Cr.P.C. refusing to summon a witness is an interlocutory order and not maintainable for revision.
Headnote:
Revisionist - Criminal Procedure Code - The court held that an order under Section 311 Cr.P.C. refusing to summon a witness is an interlocutory order and not maintainable for revision.
Fact of the Case:
The criminal revision was filed against the rejection of an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by the Learned Additional Session Judge, Lucknow.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order was an interlocutory order and hence not maintainable for revision.
Issues: The issue was whether the rejection of the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was maintainable for revision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the cases of Sethuraman Vs. Rajamanickam and Ajay Dixit Vs. State of U.P. to establish that the order of summoning or refusing to summon a witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order and not maintainable for revision.
Final Decision: The criminal revision was dismissed as it was filed against an interlocutory order and was not maintainable.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II),J.
Heard Shri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This criminal revision has been filed against order dated 13.03.2014 passed by the Learned Additional Session Judge , Court No. 6, Lucknow by which application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was rejected.
3. Learned AGA submitted that impugned order is an interlocutory order and revision is not maintainable.
4. In the case of Sethuraman Vs. Rajamanickam, 2009(65) ACC, 607 Supreme Court and in the case of Ajay Dixit Vs. State of U.P. 2011(75)ACC,388 Allahabad. It has been held that order of summoning or refusing to summon witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code as it does decide any substantive right of litigating parties. Hence, no revision lies against such orders.
5. In view of this, the impugned order is an interlocutory order and revision is not maintainable. The criminal revision is liable to be dismissed being filed against interlocutory order and is hereby dismissed in limine.
