- (1.) The matter was heard on 22-7-98 and orders were recorded on 27-7-98. Unfortunately, records were not made available to me prior to that and, as such, an order was passed on 27-7-98 indicating that orders will be recorded today (29-7-98).
(2.) The present application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. was filed for quashing an order dated 21-2-98 recorded in S. T. No. 34 of 1990, whereby the learned Sessions Judge had directed, examination of a police officer and a doctor upon an application of the prosecution. A two-fold objection was taken against that order stating that a was taken against that order stating that a prayer of the prosecution itself for re-examination of this Police Officer and Doctor and for production of certain papers was rejected by this very Sessions Judge by his order dated 3-2-98 and it was not open for the Sessions Judge to have revised/reviewed his order. It was further contended that there were no good reasons for recording such an order.
(3.) When the application was filed before this Court an order was passed on 2-5-98 staying further proceedings of the Sessions trial in question. As stated above, the only two points that arose for consideration are : (1) whether a Criminal Court could recall its own order, even an interlocutory one, and if a contradictory order could be passed at a subsequent stage without recalling the earlier order, and (2) whether there had been a proper exercise of the powers under Section 311, Cr. P. C. in the instant case.;