1. The Applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 28.10.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) (POCSO Act), Baloda Bazar in Special
Case POCSO Case No.65/2021 whereby the application filed by him under Section 311 Cr.P.C for recalling and re-examining the witnesses i.e.
victim (PW-1) and her mother (PW-2), has been rejected.
2. Shri Verma, learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that some material questions relating to date of birth were not asked at the time of cross-
examination, therefore the Applicant has moved the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C for recalling and re-examination of the said witnesses,
which has been wrongly rejected by the Court below, therefore, the same may be set aside and the instant Revision may be allowed.
3. On the other hand, Ms. Singh, learned Counsel for the State supported the order impugned and submits that the Revision is barred under Section
397(2) Cr.P.C and placed her reliance on the judgment rendered in the matter of Sethuraman vs. Rajamanickam reported in (2009) 5 SCC 153
wherein, it has been held at para-5 as under:-
“5. Secondly, what was not realized was that the order passed by the trial court refusing to call the documents and rejecting the application under
Section 311 CrPC, were interlocutory orders and as such, the revision against those orders was clearly barred under Section 397(2) CrPC. The Trial
Court, in its common order, had clearly mentioned that the cheque was admittedly signed by the respondent- accused and the only defence that was
raised, was that his signed cheques were lost and that the appellant complainant had falsely used one such cheque. The trial court also recorded a
finding that the documents were not necessary. This order did not, in any manner, decide anything finally. Therefore, both the orders i.e., one on the
application under Section 91 CrPC for production of documents and other on the application under Section 311 CrPC for recalling the witness, were
the orders of interlocutory nature, in which case, under Section 397(2), revision was clearly not maintainable. Under such circumstances, the learned
Judge could not have interfered in his revisional jurisdiction. The impugned judgment is clearly incorrect in law and would have to be set aside. It is
accordingly set aside. The appeals are allowed.â€
4. Having considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties, particularly taking into consideration the principles laid in the matter of
Sethuraman vs. Rajamanickam (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C is purely
interlocutory in nature against which, a Revision under Section 397(2) is not maintainable.
5. Accordingly, the instant Revision is hereby dismissed.
