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
4 paragraphs · 189 wordsVinod Prasad, J.—Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Tripathi holding brief of Sri Santosh Kumar Dubey, learned Counsel for the revisionists and the learned A.G.A.
Exercising power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. 3, Gautam Budh Nagar in S.T. No. 250 of 2006, State v. Raju and others, under Section 307 I.P.C., P.S. Dankaru, District Gautam Budh Nagar has resummoned the P.W.2 for further crossexamination vide his impugned order dated 9112006. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Amar Nath and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr., 1977 SCC (Cr.) 585, the said order of summoning a witness is nothing but an interlocutory order and a revision against such an order is barred under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. Further the trial Court was of the opinion that for just decision of the case reexamination of P.W.2 is a must. This discretionary power of the trial Court should not be in any way curtailed by this Court while exercising its revisional power specially when the revision is not maintainable.
In this view of the matter, this revision stands dismissed.
Revision dismissed.