AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 184 wordsAshwani Kumar Singh, J.—None appeared on behalf of revisionist.
This Criminal Revision under section 497/401, Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 10.8.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.2, Unnao, by which he had allowed the application under section 311, Cr. P.C. filed by the opposite party No. 2.
Sri Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, the learned Additional Government Advocate raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the revision on the ground that order summoning or refusing to summon witnesses are interlocutory as they do not decide any substantive remedy of the litigating parties, which are in an issue at the trial. In support of his contention, learned Additional Government Advocate has cited the legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in case of Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam, 2009 (65) ACC 607 (SC) = 2009 (77) AIC 165 (SC). Asif Hussain v. State of U.P. and another, 2007 (57) ACC 1036 & Hanuman Ram v. State of Rajasthan and others.,2009 (64) ACC 895 (SC).
In view of the above legal proposition, this revision is not maintainable. It is accordingly dismissed.
Revision Dismissed.