The inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked against an interlocutory order when the appeal is barred by Section 397(2) CrPC.

1. This Criminal Revision is directed against the Interlocutory Order, dated 12-12-2002 made in C. M. P. No. 778 of 2002 in STC No. 68/90 on the file of the Special Court under the Essential Commodities Act, Coimbatore.

2. The revision petitioner is the accused No.1 in the case pending before the Court below. The first respondent herein filed the criminal complaint under S.200 (a) of Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that the accused had contravened and violated S.19(1) of Fertiliser Control Order, 1985 and that the same is punishable under S.7 (i) and (ii) of Essential Commodities Act.

3. The first respondent / complainant had filed the Interlocutory Application in C. M. P. No. 778 of 2002 under S.311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to recall PW 1 for the purpose of further examination, for which, it is stated by the first respondent, before the trial Court, that due to inadvertence, while PW 1, Agricultural Officer Thiru. Iqbal was examined, certain pages of the stock register were left out from marking, though they are vital documents for the purpose of establishing the prosecution case and on that ground, the prosecution pleaded for recalling PW 1, so as to examine the witness further. The revision petitioner / A1 had raised his objection, by way of filing counter. The trial Court considering the arguments advanced by both sides, has allowed the petition to recall PW 1. Against which, this Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred by the petitioner / A1.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that the petition has been filed before the trial Court, under S.311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution case. According to the revision petitioner, there is no reason as to why the witness PW 1 has to be recalled as the second time, especially when the same witness had been permitted to be reexamined, and some documents were marked through him. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the impugned order passed by the trial Court, permitting to recall PW 1 for marking document would prejudice the petitioner / A1.

5. The first contention raised by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent is that the revision petition itself is not maintainable, since the revision petitioner cannot challenge the order passed in the Interlocutory Application filed under S.311, CrPC, in view of S.397(2), CrPC. Further, submitted that as per the finding of the Court below, by recalling PW 1 and marking the relevant pages of the document, which was already produced before the Court, the revision petitioner would not be prejudiced. In support of his contention, Mr. Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, the learned Government Advocate cited the following decisions reported in (1) 1985 Crimes (1) 121, Umed Singh and Others v. Devi Singh and Others and (2) 1980 Cri. L. J. 1018, Dawarka Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh .

6. The learned Government Advocate further submits that the case is of the year 1990 and still pending before the trial Court on trivial grounds. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the case was posted for questioning the accused under S.313, CrPC and the questioning was also over. He further submitted that the criminal revision preferred by the petitioner / A1 is not legally sustainable, in view of S.397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

7. In the decision, Shailendra Kumar v. State of Bihar , reported in 2002 SCC (Cri) 230 : 2002 CriLJ 568 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows "S.311 empowers the Court to summon material witnesses though not summoned as witnesses and to examine or re