https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311820 An order refusing to mark the informant's statement as an exhibit was treated as an intermediate order because it substantially affected the prosecution case and could cause serious prejudice; it was therefore not barred from revisional scrutiny under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court also held that a revision by the informant/complainant was maintainable, since the High Court's revisional power is wide and Section 372 does not prevent an otherwise competent revision. The refusal to receive material evidence and the dismissal of the revision were set aside, and the statement was directed to be proved in evidence. en-us Thu, 04 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Jan 2024 21:00:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311820 An order refusing to mark the informant's statement as an exhibit was treated as an intermediate order because it substantially affected the prosecution case and could cause serious prejudice; it was therefore not barred from revisional scrutiny under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court also held that a revision by the informant/complainant was maintainable, since the High Court's revisional power is wide and Section 372 does not prevent an otherwise competent revision. The refusal to receive material evidence and the dismissal of the revision were set aside, and the statement was directed to be proved in evidence. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 04 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311820