\ -® IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.h/I.P.No.^0 /2010 PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PETITIONERS ^y ..-•-''^<-;GY' ^<y^-^ ^--" RESPONDENT PROCEDURE >In^?s Sen^ 1. Virendra Kumar Sinha, S/o Babulal Sinha, aged about 26 years, 2. Babulal Sinha, S/o Ramtahalu Sinha, aged about 50 years, 3. Smt. Devlabai Sinha, W/o Babulal Sinha, aged about 48 years, 4. Mukesh Kumar, S/o Babulal Sinha, aged about 28 years, 5. Ku. Purnima Sinha, D/o Babulal Sinha, aged about 25 years, All Resident of Village Bhavarmara, Police Station Lalbag, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through: The District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) "T ^-T~ 'S^ '*iW\vi''i, Bflly-'IS, fcfdl'Hy z5-.^,f,w. Zfl-^o ^ sn^r TPH5' ('^f^'^T) SII^I W f<-fi<* TP^.L.STii^?T st>*fr* wfepih t(it)<?il' 4 fsc6 <i"i'yiT ^ siRin •ffl^r SELJ-fon'ble ShriJVIanjndj-a Mohan $hrivastava, J. 19-07-2011 Shri Anup Majumdar, counsel f<|ir the petitioners. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, Pane] Heard. This petition has been filed b^ Lawyer for the State. the petitioners aggrieved by order dated 13-01-2010 passed by the] 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon jn Criminal Revision fjlo.22/2008, by which, order dated 24-03-2008'passed by the Judicial Ms|gistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon in Criminal Case No.375/2008, has be^n reversed and application of the prosecution filed under Section 31 1 of Though, number of grounds the Cr.P.C. was allowed. have been raised in the petition, learned counsel for the petitioners se^ks to assail the order passed by the learned Revisional Court on the so|e ground that the ordei" rejecting application under Section 311 ofjthe Cr.P.C. is interlocutory, and therefore, bar under Section 397(2) o( consequently, the order passed by the| On the other hand, learned aforesaid ground has been taken for t^ie first time by the petitioners at fhe time of arguments, though, no such ^round was raised by the petitioners in this petition. True it is that the ground, whiclti is being raised for the first time, at the Cr.P.C. would be attracted and Court below is withoutjurisdiction. State counsel submitted that the the time of arguments, has not beei] goes to the rootof the matter and re| jurisdicUon of the Revisional Court Moreover, the submission is based oi] disputed by any of the party. The Pro^ raised in the petition; however, it ates to the objection with regard to to entertain the revision petition. certain facts, which have not been ecution moved an application under •FS/140—2/ZOII—1,50,000. T .<.-.A^L___. ..- ^ f '^i'iiio^, yfli'y'iic, T^irey (^,^,P.f<M,2-lofz^o sn^? 'T^^ (1pf3^Sar) sn^i ^r R;-ii* 1cT 'L<*fi^T sh^ .:;^~'.:'?-*s.:nh •; w •,,."'.K.V ^ ^ .y'^1^ 1^^'^ ^p^ Tumane 'l Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for re-exa|nination of Smt. Pingla Sinha, which aggrieved by the orderpassed by pref^rred revision, which was allowed by was reiected bv the trial Court. S'TSO'W^S^^^' the trial ficutft,.^e,prpsecution |i. ">ttkietapugne!Gt,@Edqr«,.a.;,,, I.. ,.. . Iri'tt®oaete'iafeSieffiura'nan v.| •-it has been-held by'the^Supreme Co|jrt court refusihg to call the documents| Section 311 CrPC, were interlocuto(y against those orders was clearly bajrred has also been held that the appli| production of documents and other CrPC for recalling the witness, were| which case, under Section 397(2), re^ In the present case also, the order passed by the learned trial C^ I"- .-'Section.3-1.1 of-the.ei-.P.C,forrecall • filed-b^SfWtie'Cburt'if^ifwas not 'the [aiw'lS]d%^m'6y<{Re Supreme| dn in t.~..*s-'~'- J^'S''^£ ^•'^"i. .... (supra).J^^Ipre, tKj?j)etition has dated 13-01-2010. passed by the prosecution, .however, would be at lib^r as may be available to them, againstjthe ifso advised, in accordance with law.l In view offoregoing, the petiticti qnqfeNN •wreff^ fe^ •^R?R ^sffwTan^r \Rajamanickam, (2009) 5 SCC 153, that the order passed by the trial and rejecting the application under orders and as such, the revision under Section 397(2) CrPC. It ibation under Section 91 CrPC for the application under Section 311 |the orders of interlocutory nature, in •^ision was clearly not maintainable. frrosecution filed revision against the »urt rejecting theirapplication under c|f the witness. Therefore, the revision njaintainable under the law, in view of Court in the case of Sethuraman jtoLe allowed. The impugned order Revisional Court is set aside. The irty to take recourse to such remedy order passed by the Magistrate, is allowed. No orders as to cost. Sd/- ManindraMohan Shrivastava Judge wioflo S-Av ii!;"iic><l, (inT?ira—FS/l40—2/2011—1,50,000.