IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.968 of 2009 RAJESH KUMAR @ RAJ KUMAR YADAV, son of Wakil Yadav, resident of village Tajpur, P.S.-Balia, Distt.-Begusarai ------------Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 5. 26.8.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. There is no need to mention the merit of the case as legality of allowing a petition under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is here for discussion. In the case, after closing of defence evidence a petition was filed on behalf of the prosecution to get mark exhibited a Test Identification Parade chart by examining a witness, that is allowed. 2009(5) SCC 153 (Sethuraman Vrs. Rajamanickam) is referred for discussion which defines the order passed under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as interlocutory and revision against such is barred under section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. An attempt is made on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner that in the referred above decision petition under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was refused while in the instant case petition is allowed but I find distinction not tenable for maintainability of the revision petition an order passed under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been said interlocutory. Finding the revision petition not maintainable, the same is dismissed. Petitioner is free to raise infirmity if that can be taken in appropriate stage including appeal. Sudip ( Mandhata Singh, J )