https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294432 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. en-us Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Apr 2021 11:35:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294432 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294432