SURENDRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. B. Srivastava, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant, On the facts of this application it can be disposed of finally.

(2.) IN a proceedings under Section 133 of Cr. P. C. the applicant, who was the opposite party before the Magistrate, denied the existence of pubuc right the Magistrate, there upon, as required under Section 137 Cr. P. C. called upon the applicant to produce such evidence as he desired in support of the plea of denial. The applicant made an application for summoning the Tehsildar and the Lekhpal to be examined in support of sucn denial. The Magistrate in his order observed that since the applicant had not produced any other evidence in support of denial, it was not necessary to summon the Tehsildar and the Lekhpal in that connection. By the same order the Magistrate called upon the applicant again to produce his evidence in support of the denial. The applicant was in revision to the Sessions Judge, who rejected the same observing that the Magistrate's order was merely interlocutory in so far as the Magistrate had not passed a final order on the question he was required to decide under Section 137 of the Cr. P. C.