THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.412 OF 2011 DATED:28.07.2011 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., without specifying as to the relief that is sought for, except narrating the grounds for revision. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. Petitioner has not stated in the revision case as to the relief he is seeking from the Court. In fact, there is no order as such, which is impugned in the revision. The grievance of the petitioners-A1 and A2 appears to be that while conducting the trial and during the course of recording the evidence of P.W.8, the Special Public Prosecutor and standing counsel for ACB, without treating the witness hostile, has put certain questions, which are in the nature of leading questions and therefore impermissible and ignoring the objections raised by the petitioners-accused, the trial Court has permitted the said questions to be answered by the witness. The copy of the deposition of P.W.8 in examination-in-chief would show that the trial Court has recorded the questions and also the answers given by the witness and noted the objections raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners-accused regarding the said questions- objections raised by the petitioners. Permitting those questions, the trial Court has further noted that the validity of the answers will be decided at the time of the judgment. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the trial Court ought not to have permitted the questions at all to be answered by the witness. 5. It is not as though the objections raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners-A1 and A2 were totally ignored. The learned Judge has noted that the question as to whether or not the said questions are admissible or not and whether or not the answer given by the witness is a substantial piece of evidence can be decided at the time of the judgment. The witness was permitted to answer the questions, subject to the objections raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners-A1 and A2. It is therefore left open to the trial Court to consider the admissibility or otherwise of the said part of the evidence, which is objected to by the petitioners-A1 and A2 at a later stage. As the petitioners have not impugned any order as such passed by the trial Court, the present revision is not maintainable. It is open to the petitioners-A1 and A2 to file necessary application and invite the order in the trial Court and if aggrieved, assail the same. The present revision case, however, is not maintainable. 6. In the result, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 28th July, 2011. Tsy