Criminal revision against interlocutory orders is barred, and interference without hearing the affected party cannot stand.

Criminal revision does not lie against interlocutory orders under Section 397(2) CrPC, and orders rejecting requests under Sections 91 and 311 CrPC were interlocutory because they did not finally determine the parties' rights. The High Court therefore lacked revisional jurisdiction to interfere. The High Court's direction, however, was also unsustainable because it affected the complainant's personal documents and recall for cross-examination without notice to him, depriving him of an opportunity to be heard. The impugned order was set aside and the criminal appeals succeeded because the revisional interference was both legally barred and procedurally unfair.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could allow criminal revisions against interlocutory orders refusing production of documents and recalling of a witness without issuing notice to the complainant. (ii) Whether revisions under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were maintainable against such interlocutory orders in view of Section 397(2).

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could allow criminal revisions against interlocutory orders refusing production of documents and recalling of a witness without issuing notice to the complainant.

Analysis: The complainant was entitled to be heard before the High Court directed production of his personal documents and interfered with the trial court's refusal to recall him for cross-examination. The absence of notice deprived him of an opportunity to show that the documents were either non-existent or not necessary, especially when he had not been cross-examined on those matters. Such interference without hearing the affected party was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The High Court's order was liable to be set aside for failure to hear the complainant.

Issue (ii): Whether revisions under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were maintainable against such interlocutory orders in view of Section 397(2).

Analysis: The trial court's orders rejecting the applications under Sections 91 and 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 did not finally determine the rights of the parties and were interlocutory in nature. Since Section 397(2) bars revision against interlocutory orders, the criminal revisions before the High Court were not maintainable. The High Court therefore lacked jurisdiction to interfere in revision.

Conclusion: The revisions were barred and the High Court ought not to have interfered.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the criminal appeals succeeded because the revisional interference was both procedurally unfair and legally barred.

Ratio Decidendi: Revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not lie against interlocutory orders, and an order passed behind the back of an affected party without notice cannot be sustained where that party is prejudicially affected.

---