An order passed by a Sessions Judge cancelling the bail granted to an accused person is an "interlocutory order" and not revisable under Section 397(2) Cr. P. C.

S. MADHUSUDAN RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE Inspector of Police C. B. C. I. D. , Hyderabad filed 11 charge-sheets against the petitioner in the year 1971. The petitioner was granted bail in all the 11 cases and the cases are now pending trial before the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. One of the cases is c. C. 500/75 in which the petitioner is being tried for offences punishable under sections 420, 467 and 471 I. P. C. After the commencement of the examination of the witnesses for the prosecution in some of the cases, in June. 1976, the prosecution filed an application in the court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge hyderabad under Section 439 (2) Cr. P. C. requesting the Court to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner in C. C. No. 500/75. It was alleged in the application that the petitioner was trying to win over the witnesses and that his being at large would be highly detrimental to the prosecution. In support of the submission that the petitioner was interfering with the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution filed two affidavits. One of the affidavits is that of the Inspector of Police, who investigated into the case and is in charge of the prosecution. The other affidavit is that of one M. Ranga Reddi, a witness for the prosecution. The petitioner opposed the application denying the allegations made against him through an affidavit. On a consideration of the two affidavits filed on behalf of the prosecution and the affidavit of the petitioner, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the petitioner was abusing the bail granted to him and accordingly passed an order cancelling the bail granted to the Petitioner in C. C. No. 500/75. This revision petition is directed against the said order of the Sessions judge, cancelling the bail.

( 2 ) SRI C. Padmanabha Reddi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Sessions Judge ought not to have entertained the application for cancellation of the bail in so far as such application for cancellation of the bail ought to have been preferred before the trial Magistrate under section 437 (5) Cr. P C. It is also contended that the Sessions Judge acted illegally and improperly by " relying on the false affidavit of Ranga Reddi and the vague affidavit of the Inspector of Police. It is urged that the allegations in the affidavits of Ranga Reddi and the Inspector of police have been invented only to harass the petitioner. Appearing for the State, the learned Advocate-General contends that the instant application for revision of the order of the Sessions judge is not maintainable in view of the bar under Section 397 (2) Cr. P. C. and that at any rate, there is absolutely nothing illegal or improper or incorrect in the impugned order of the Sessions Judge.

( 3 ) WHILE Section 397 (1) Cr. P. C. invests the High Court with the power to revise the finding, sentence or order passed by an inferior court, Section 397 (2) provides that "the powers of revision conferred by Sub-Section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding . Relying on the observations of Their Lordships of the supreme Court in Mohanlal Vs. State of gujarat (1) AIR 1968 S. C. 733, Sri padmanabha Reddi contends that the order passed by the learned Sessions judge is a final order and therefore this court has every power to revise the same under Section 397 (1) Cr. P. C. In the case relied, Their Lordships were considering the question, whether an order passed by the High Court in a criminal revision Case is a "final order" within the meaning of Article 134 (1) (c) of the constitution of India. In considering whether the revisional jurisdiction of a high Court is barred under Section 397 (2) Cr. P. C. , what is necessary for consideration is not whether the order is a "final order" but whether the order in question is an "interlocutory order" passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. Even an "interlocutory order

Click Here to Read the rest of this document