K.P.S.SANDHU, J. - (1.) PARSHOTAM and Ram Datt have come up in revision against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar, dated 15th December, 1984.
(2.) FIRM Ram Chander Arjan Dass of Hansi through its partner Arjan Dass filed a complaint against the petitioners under Sections 420, 406 read with section 120 -B, 468 and 469 of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of the prosecution evidence the complainant moved an application under sections 252/204 and 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein he prayed that three witnesses, namely, Sat Pal, Narsingh Dass and Raj Kumar who were not mentioned in the list of witnesses be summoned to meet the ends of justice. However, the learned trial Magistrate declined the prayer vide his detailed order dated 8th August, 1984. Aggrieved by aforesaid order of the learned Magistrate, the complainant went in revision and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar, allowed it and ordered that Sat Pal and Narsingh Dass be summoned and examined as witnesses.
(3.) THE short ground taken up by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since the order of the learned Magistrate was an interlocutory order no revision was competent against it in view of section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the face of it is illegal. To support this proposition Mr. M. S. Liberhan has placed reliance on a Single Bench authority of this Court reported as Chander Bhan v. State of Haryana, 1979 C.L.R. 253 wherein his Lordship was pleased to hold that an order allowing or disallowing additional evidence is an interlocutory order and that a revision against such order is barred by section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mr. Harbans Singh, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand argues that the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is well -merited and should not be set aside, but I am of the view that this petition has to succeed on the ground that the leaned Additional Sessions Judge was not competent to interfere with an interlocutory order and pass the impugned order. Consequently the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar, dated 15th December, 1984, is set aside and the parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 10th February, 1986.;