KAMUBEN M RAVJI v. RAJNIKANT K SHAH

1986 allowed the application and directed the trial Court to permit the complainant to examine the witness for which he had applied for and to issue the summons on the said witness. Feeling aggrieved, the accused have preferred the present revision. Pending this revision application, further proceedings in the trial have been stayed. (cid:9)It is contended that the order in question passed by the trial Judge was interlocutory in nature and no revision would lie against such order. I see no substance in this contention. The interlocutory order referred to in Section 397 CrPC means those orders which are passed in course of the trial at an interlocutory stage to advance the cause of justice for final determination. The order which takes away the right of the complainant to establish a fact before the Court can be said to be intermediary but not interlocutory, as envisaged under Section 397 CrPC. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge was perfectly right in entertaining the revision application. Besides, the order permitting a witness to be summoned before the Court would necessarily be an interlocutory order which does not decide the rights of the parties in either way. Such an order being interlocutory in nature, no revision would lie against such order. In my view, therefore, the present revision application filed against the order permitting the witness to be summoned is not maintainable. (cid:9)Revision application is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief is vacated. The registry will send the writ forthwith. Considering the date of the criminal case, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 5 will give due precedence and comply with the direction issued by the learned Addl. City Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Ahmedabad on 12th September, 1986 forthwith. (cid:9) (cid:9) *** Prakash* (cid:9)