ASIF HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Interlocutory order? This question has drawn the attention of the Courts many times and has been subject of various judicial pronouncements by the Apex Court and also by many High Courts albeit with divergent views. This question once again has been mooted for consideration before me compelling this Court to take up the same exercise and get the issue settled, if possible, at least in respect of some of the orders, which are referred to below, so that this Court as well as the lower revisional courts are not thronged with revisionists through spate of revisions which up till now has piled up in it's dockets of backlog cases. Since in all the above revisions the said question is involved directly hence they have been appended together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) A resume of facts, however, is necessitated, for a purpose of understanding of the controversy involved, the arguments advanced and for making a decision thereon. Criminal Revision No. 6372 of 2006, Asif Hussain v. State of U. P., and another.

(3.) IN this revision Additional Session's Judge, court No. 2, Mathura has rejected the prayer of the accused revisionist to recall, for further cross-examination, witnesses P.W. 1 Smt. Janki and P.W. 2 Gokul, under Section 311, Cr. P.C., by his impugned order dated 25.9.2006 passed in Special S.T. No. 11 of 1996 (Crime Number 82 of 1994), State v. Hari and others, under Section 376, I.P.C. and Section 3 (XII) S.C./S.T. Act P.S. Govardhan district Mathura, on the ground that both the witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination on different dates and therefore there was no need to recall them for further cross-examination on those very points which were asked from them. This revisionist had also filed an application under Section 482, Cr. P.C., Criminal Misc. Application No. 14508 of 2006, but the same was got dismissed as not pressed because this Court (Hon'ble V. K. Chaturvedi, J.) was of the opinion that the order impugned is revisable order and a revision against such an order is maintainable. Hence the revisionist has filed the present revision seeking leave of that Bench. Criminal Revision No. 6410 of 2006, Pradeep v. State of U. P.