Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84987 Court No. - 88 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 912 of 2025 Revisionist :- Harshit Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashok Kumar Mishra,Shivesh Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Madan Pal Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The present revision has been preferred against the order dated 15.02.2025 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge ( POCSO Act), Court No.2, Pilibhit, in Special Sessions Case No. 100 of 2019 (State Vs. Harshit Pandey & Anr.), under Sections, 363, 376, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Pooranpur, District Pilibhit whereby the application under Section 348 of B.N.S.S. filed by the revisionist for re-examining the opposite party no.5 has been dismissed. 3. The case in brief are that in S.T. No. 100 of 2019 arising out of 297 of 2019 was fixed for recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 15.2.2025. An application under Section 348 B.N.S.S. (311 Cr.P.C.) has been moved by the accused stating therein that the mother of the victim has been made witness by the Investigating Officer but she was not produced as prosecution witness in the court, while, mother of the victim is most reliable witness to disclose the fact that the on what documents she got admitted her daughter in school and what paper has been made available at the time of the admission of her daughter/victim. 4. Learned AGA have opposed the submission of learned counsel for the revisionist and submits that the case was fixed for recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the application under Section 348 of B.N.S.S. has been moved only to linger on the trial anyhow and the trial court rightly been rejected the application by the order impugned. It is further submitted that the order dated 15.2.2025 passed under Section 348 B.N.S.S. is an interlocutory order is clearly barred under Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C.. Hence, the present revision is liable to be dismissed. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Upon asking question to the learned counsel for the revisionist regarding maintainability of the present revision, no satisfied answer has been given. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of 'Sethuraman Vs. Rajamanickam, 2009 (65) ACC 607 (SC)', Girish Kumar Suneja Vs. CIB, (2017) 14 SCC 809', and 'Asif Hussain Vs. State of U.P., 2007 (57) ACC 1036 (AII-D.B.)', held as under:- "Order summoning or refusing to summon witnesses u/s 311 Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. as it does not decide any substantive right of litigating parties. Hence no revision lies against such orders." 7. In view of the aforesaid judgment cited above, the order passed under Section 348 B.N.S.S. is purely an interlocutory order and a revision against an interlocutory order is not maintainable. 8. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 Akbar (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AKBAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad