dated 03.05.2017 under Section
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act; whereby the application moved by the
petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling ... statement of the petitioner under Section 313
Cr.P.C.
On 14.05.2018 the statement of the petitioner under Section
313 Cr.P.C. was recorded
cross-examine the
complainant was closed. Thereafter, revisionist filed an
application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the
complainant for his cross-examination ... further submitted that the Ld. trial Court dismissed the
application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in haste of deciding the
case quickly, wrongly
cross-examine the
complainant was closed. Thereafter, revisionist filed an
application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the
complainant for his cross-examination ... further submitted that the Ld. trial Court dismissed the
application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in haste of deciding the
case quickly, wrongly
under Section 311 Cr.P.C., were interlocutory
orders and as such, the revision against those
orders was clearly barred under Section 397(2)
... application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for
production of documents and other on the
application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling
submitted that the application under
Section 145(2) of the Act is in the nature of application under
Section 311 CrPC and thus ... revisionist to move the application under Section 145(2) NI Act
had been closed. Application under Section 311 CrPC for
recalling a witness
under
challenge is not one whereby the Ld. Trial Court declined
or failed to decide the application under Section 311 of
Criminal Procedure Code ... Court was whether an order
rejecting an application under Section 91 and Section 311
of Criminal Procedure Code was an interlocutory order
respondents. Ld. Trial Court erred in
not allowing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C and the relevancy of
the documents has been duly ... 130596/0588. The
complainant has also filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C for
recalling the complainant witness Arvind Kumar and for summoning
criminal case.
Complainant is feeling aggrieved by order dated
22.10.2018 vide which Learned Trial Court has dismissed his
application under Section 311 CrPC ... under Section 397 (2)
CrPC.
As noticed above, vide impugned order, Learned
Metropolitan Magistrate has disposed of the application under
Section 311 CrPC
respondent that during pendency of the complaint, an
.
application under Section 311 CrPC was preferred by the
respondent for leading additional evidence, which ... suffer irreparable loss because his revision, against the
rejection of application under Section 311 CrPC, will not be
revived as there
respondent that during pendency of the complaint, an
.
application under Section 311 CrPC was preferred by the
respondent for leading additional evidence, which ... suffer irreparable loss because his revision, against the
rejection of application under Section 311 CrPC, will not be
revived as there
