G. K. SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is preferred against the order of the Sessions Judge, Sirohi, dated 21st July, '88, by which, charge has been framed against the petitioner u/s. 363, I. P. C. The petitioner is being tried for offence u/s 366, IPC and u/s. 4 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, in the court of Sessions Judge, Sirohi. The prosecution completed its evidence. The trial court heard final arguments from both the sides, and after hearing final arguments, the learned Sessions Judge thought it proper to amend the charge and framed a new charge u/s. 363, I. P. C against the petitioner; and while passing the order, it was mentioned therein that the petitioner did not want to lead any further evidence with regard to the amended charge u/s. 363, IPC The learned Sessions Judge granted opportunity to the accused to cross-examine the witnesses "of the prosecution again, with regard to this new charge u/s. 363, IPC, and he had also the right to lead his evidence on this charge. The grievance of the petitioner is that the counsel for the petitioner was not present in court when it was got written by the petitioner that he did not want to cross-examine any prosecution witness further, so far as charge u/s. 363, IPC, was concerned. The petitioner has challenged that order in this revision petition.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor argued that the order of framing charge is an interlocutory order and against such an order, no revision lies. THEy relied on the case of Nemichand vs. State of Rajasthan and an order of a division bench of this Court in a reference made by a Single Judge of this Court; and while dealing with a number of case-laws, relying on the case of VC Shukla, reported in 1980 SC 96, the reference was answered with the observation that order of framing charge against the accused persons, was an interlocutory order within the meaning of S. 397 (2), Cr. P. C In view of the above judgment, this revision petition does not lie, and it is hereby dismissed accordingly. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in the interest of justice, the petitioner may be granted permission to cross-examine the witnesses of the prosecution, and an opportunity to lead his evidence so far as the amended charge is concerned. In this respect, the order of the learned Sessions Judge is very clear. Such permission has already been granted to the petitioner, and if he thinks that by misunderstanding or not under proper guidance of his counsel the petitioner stated in the court that he did not want to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses, then, it would be open to him to move the learned Sessions Judge, requesting him that in the interest of justice, permission may be granted to him, which was already granted to him, and the learned Sessions Judge would consider the request. .;