JUDGMENT

Alexander Thomas, J.

The prayers in the above Crl.Appeal are as follows :

“.......... to set aside the impugned order of the court below dt. 05.12.2022 in CMP 275/2022 in SC 3/2016 of the Special Court II, NIA Ernakulam.”

2. Heard Sri.V.T.Raghunath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.Suvin R.Menon, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondent-Union of India represented by the NIA.

3. The order under challenge in this case is the impugned order rendered on 05.12.2022 in Crl.M.P No.275/2022 filed by the appellant in Sessions Case, S.C No.3/2016 on the files of the Special Court for Trial of NIA cases, Ernakulam, whereby the request of the prosecution, under Sec.311, for re-calling and re-examination of certain witnesses and under Sec.91 of the Cr.P.C, for production of certain documents, have been allowed in part.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that, an order in the nature of the present impugned order, rendered under Sec.311 of the Cr.P.C and Sec.91 of the Cr.P.C, will not be an interlocutory order, as envisaged in Sec.21(1) of the NIA Act and would be an order having final nature or an intermediate order, as understood