Karn Dewangan vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6834 Chatt

                                    1

                                                                NAFR
            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                  Criminal Revision No.1145 of 2022


 Karn Dewangan S/o Dhaniram Dewangan Aged About 19 Years R/o
 Ward No. 12, Bilaigarh, Taluka, Bilaigarh, District : Balodabazar-
 Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh                              ---- Applicant
                                Versus
     State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police
     Station- Bilaigarh, Taluka- Baloda Bazar District Baloda Bazar-
     Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. Crime No. 138/2021 Police Station
     Bilaigarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
                                                      ---Non-Applicant


For Applicant:                Shri Suresh Kumar Verma, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant/State:      Ms. Priyamvada Singh, Dy. G.A.


              Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari
                            Order on Board
16.11.2022

1.      The Applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 28.10.2022

passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) (POCSO Act),

Baloda Bazar in Special Case POCSO Case No.65/2021 whereby

the application filed by him under Section 311 Cr.P.C for recalling and

re-examining the witnesses i.e. victim (PW-1) and her mother (PW-2),

has been rejected.



2.      Shri Verma, learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that

some material questions relating to date of birth were not asked at

the time of cross-examination, therefore the Applicant has moved the

application under Section 311 Cr.P.C for recalling and re-examination
                                  2

of the said witnesses, which has been wrongly rejected by the Court

below, therefore, the same may be set aside and the instant Revision

may be allowed.


3.   On the other hand, Ms. Singh, learned Counsel for the State

supported the order impugned and submits that the Revision is

barred under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C and placed her reliance on the

judgment rendered in the matter of Sethuraman vs. Rajamanickam

reported in (2009) 5 SCC 153 wherein, it has been held at para-5 as

under:-

                      "5. Secondly, what was not realized was that
                      the order passed by the trial court refusing to
                      call the documents and rejecting the
                      application under Section 311 CrPC, were
                      interlocutory orders and as such, the revision
                      against those orders was clearly barred under
                      Section 397(2) CrPC. The Trial Court, in its
                      common order, had clearly mentioned that the
                      cheque was admittedly signed by the
                      respondent-accused and the only defence that

was raised, was that his signed cheques were lost and that the appellant complainant had falsely used one such cheque. The trial court also recorded a finding that the documents were not necessary. This order did not, in any manner, decide anything finally. Therefore, both the orders i.e., one on the application under Section 91 CrPC for production of documents and other on the application under Section 311 CrPC for recalling the witness, were the orders of interlocutory nature, in which case, under Section 397(2), revision was clearly not maintainable. Under such circumstances, the learned Judge could not have interfered in his revisional jurisdiction. The impugned judgment is clearly incorrect in law and would have to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside. The appeals are allowed."

4. Having considered the submissions made by learned Counsel

for the parties, particularly taking into consideration the principles laid

in the matter of Sethuraman vs. Rajamanickam (supra), this Court is

of the considered opinion that the application filed under Section 311

Cr.P.C is purely interlocutory in nature against which, a Revision

under Section 397(2) is not maintainable.

5. Accordingly, the instant Revision is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priya