ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH,J. - (1.) NONE appeared on behalf of revisionist.
(2.) THIS Criminal Revision under sec ­tion 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 sec ­tion 311, Cr. P.C. filed by the opposite party No. 2. 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 conten ­tion, learned Additional Government Ad ­vocate 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 and Hanuman Ram v. State of Rajasthan and others.,2009 (64) ACC 895 (SC).
(3.) IN view of the above legal proposi ­tion, this revision is not maintainable. It is accordingly dismissed. Revision Dismissed.;