R.P. Nagrath, J. - (1.) NONE has appeared for the petitioner despite second call. Challenge in the instant revision petition is to the order dated 17.9.2013, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jagraon, rejecting the prayer for recalling the witnesses, namely; PW -2 Bhupinder Singh and PW -3 Sukhwinder Singh under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
(2.) AFTER going through the file, I am of the considered opinion that revision against the order passed by the trial Court under Section 311 Cr.P.C. would not be maintainable. This Court in Baljit and others Vs. State of Haryan and another : 2009(2) RCR (Criminal) 178, held that the rejection of application for recalling the witnesses is an interlocutory order which is not revisable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sethuraman Vs. Rajamanickam : (2009) 5 SCC 153 also held as under: - ...what was not realized was that the order passed by the Trial Court refusing to call the documents and rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., were interlocutory orders and as such, the revision against those orders was clearly barred under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. The Trial Court, in its common order, had clearly mentioned that the cheque was admittedly signed by the respondent/accused and the only defence that was raised, was that his signed cheques were lost and that the appellant/complainant had falsely used one such cheque. The Trial Court also recorded a finding that the documents were not necessary. This order did not, in any manner, decide anything finally. Therefore, both the orders, i.e., one on the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for production of documents and other on the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the witness, were the orders of interlocutory nature, in which case, under Section 397(2), revision was clearly not maintainable... In view of the above, the instant revision is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate petition. ;