ASHOK KUMAR BHADAURIA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) NO notice is issued to private respondent in view of the order proposed to be passed today, however, liberty is reserved for private respondent to apply for variation or modification of this order if he feels so aggrieved.

(3.) IN a subsequent decision in Dhariwal Tobacco Products Ltd. and others v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2009 (64) ACC 962, the Apex Court has held that a summoning order passed by the Magistrate was not an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397 Cr.P.C. Therefore, learned Sessions Judge committed error of law in holding the revision to be not maintainable and, therefore, the revisional order is liable to be quashed. Writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 4.8.2011 passed by INcharge Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar is set-aside and learned Sessions Judge is directed to decide the revision on merits after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties concerned.