Vinod Prasad - (1.) -Interlocutory order? This question has drawn the attention of the Courts many times and has been subject of various judicial pronouncements by the Apex Court and also by many High Courts albeit with divergent views. This question once again has been mooted for consideration before me compelling this Court to take up the same exercise and get the issue settled, if possible, at least in respect of some of the orders, which are referred to below, so that this Court as well as the lower revisional courts are not thronged with revisionists through spate of revisions which up till now has piled up in it's dockets of backlog cases. Since in all the above revisions the said question is involved directly hence they have been appended together and are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) A resume of facts, however, is necessitated, for a purpose of understanding of the controversy involved, the arguments advanced and for making a decision thereon. Criminal Revision No. 6372 of 2006, Asif Hussain v. State of U. P., and another. In this revision the challenge has been thrown to the impugned order dated 10.11.2006 passed by Additional Special Judge Azamgarh in S.T. No. 125 of 2002, State v. Asif and others, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 395, 347, 323 and 427, I.P.C. and Section 7, Criminal Law Amendment Act P.S. Mubarakpur district Azamgarh by which the trial court has rejected the application filed by the accused revisionists under Section 311, Cr. P.C. for summoning the documentary messages sent by District Magistrate and Superintendent of police to Home control, Lucknow, D.G. Control, Lucknow, I.G. (Police), Varanasi Zone, and also for summoning the then District Magistrate T. P. Pathak, and the then Superintendent of Police Kuwar Brijesh Singh as witnesses. The Session's trial was fixed for final argument. Form the impugned order it is clear that this Court had directed the trial court to conclude the said Session's trial within six months vide it's order dated 10.3.2006, passed in Criminal Misc. Application 2802 of 2006, Jafar Ahmad v. State of U. P. Trial court, in the impugned order, has held that the special report of the crime is already on record and what ever the information was sent to the State Government was based on the special report. Moreover it held that under Section 123 of Evidence Act, no public witness can be compelled to disclose the source of secret information which has been received to him. It also held in the impugned order that no right of the accused is prejudiced by not allowing the said prayer made by the accused. This order dated 10.11.2006 is under challenge in this revision. It is important to mention here that earlier the revisionist had filed an application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. being Criminal Misc. Application No. 14898 of 2006 but the same was got dismissed as not pressed on 21.11.2006 because this Court (Hon'ble V. K. Chaturvedi, J.) was of the opinion that the order impugned is a revisable order and a revision against such an order is maintainable. Hence the revisionists have filed the present revision with the leave of that Bench. Criminal Revision No. 6377 of 2006, Sonu Thakur v. State of U. P. and another. In this revision Additional Session's Judge, court No. 2, Aligarh has refused to recall P.W. 7 Sanjiv Kumar Bajpai Circle Officer, who was the Investigating Officer of crime which resulted into S.T. No. 683 of 2004, State v. Sonu Thakur, under Section 302, I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (x), S.C./S.T. Act. P.S. Sasni Gate, Aligarh for being cross-examined at the instance of the revisionists who is an accused in the said session's trial vide his impugned order dated 2.11.2006. The trial court, in the impugned order, has observed that in the trial Sri Ram Babu Sharma and Sri K. B. Gupta are the counsels for the accused revisionist and they were granted opportunities to cross examine the said witness P.W. 7 many times but they did not cross examine him. It also observed that the said witness appeared in the court many times coming from Meerut, as he is posted there, but he was not cross examined by the accused. It further observed that the opportunity of cross-examination of the said witness was already closed on 10.10.2006 and there was no reason for reconsideration of the said order. It is noted here that earlier the revisionist had filed an application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. being Criminal Misc. Application No. 14731 of 2006 but the same was got dismissed as not pressed on 17.11.2006 because this Court (Hon'ble V. K. Chaturvedi, J.) was of the opinion that the order impugned is a revisable order and a revision against such an order is maintainable. Hence the revisionist has filed the present revision seeking leave of that Bench. Criminal Revision No. 6346 of 2006, Hari v. State of U. P.
(3.) IN this revision Additional Session's Judge, court No. 2, Mathura has rejected the prayer of the accused revisionist to recall, for further cross-examination, witnesses P.W. 1 Smt. Janki and P.W. 2 Gokul, under Section 311, Cr. P.C., by his impugned order dated 25.9.2006 passed in Special S.T. No. 11 of 1996 (Crime Number 82 of 1994), State v. Hari and others, under Section 376, I.P.C. and Section 3 (XII) S.C./S.T. Act P.S. Govardhan district Mathura, on the ground that both the witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination on different dates and therefore there was no need to recall them for further cross-examination on those very points which were asked from them. This revisionist had also filed an application under Section 482, Cr. P.C., Criminal Misc. Application No. 14508 of 2006, but the same was got dismissed as not pressed because this Court (Hon'ble V. K. Chaturvedi, J.) was of the opinion that the order impugned is revisable order and a revision against such an order is maintainable. Hence the revisionist has filed the present revision seeking leave of that Bench. Criminal Revision No. 6410 of 2006, Pradeep v. State of U. P. In this revision the trial court Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act Ghaziabad has rejected the prayer of the accused revisionist under Section 311, Cr. P.C. to re-summon P.W. 1 Kalua Ram and P.W. 2 Bali Chand for cross-examination by the accused revisionist in Special Trial No. 4 of 1996 State v. Pradeep under Sections 307, I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (x), S.C./S.T. Act P.S. Bahadur Garh district Ghaziabad by his impugned order dated 17.10.2006. The trial Judge held that the question which are now desired to be asked could have been asked before and the said questions are not important and the accused had already availed full opportunity of cross-examining those witnesses.;