Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kanha @ Kanhaiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 August, 2017
CRR-1800-2017
(KANHA @ KANHAIYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
31-08-2017
Shri Kamal Singh Rajput, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri A. P. Singh, learned Government Advocate for the
respondents/State, on advance copy.
The applicant has filed this revision under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order dated 30/06/2017 passed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa District Khandwa in Special Case No.200082/2016 whereby the application preferred by the applicant under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From perusal of the record it appears that this revision has been filed against the order dated 30/06/2017 passed on the application filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. Section 392 of the Cr.P.C. provides that no revision would be maintainable against any interlocutory order passed in trial. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sethuraman vs. Rajamanickam, reported in 2009 (5) SCC, 153, has held that the orders passed by the trial Court on the application filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. are interlocutory in nature and, therefore, the revision of such orders by High Court is barred under Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Thus, in view of the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sethuraman (supra), the present revision is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed.
(MISS VANDANA KASREKAR) JUDGE manju