IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between intermediate and interlocutory orders and the applicability of provisos to Section 148(3) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

ORDER :

This petition is filed praying this court to set aside the order passed by the Trial Court dated 08.02.2024 on the file of 47th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-68) allowing the application filed under Section 148 (3) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) to release a sum of Rs.62,00,000/- (20% of the fine amount) deposited with the Hon’ble Court in furtherance to order dated 20.12.2023.

2. The factual aspect of the case is that the petitioner was arrayed as accused in C.C.No.1865/2021 in the proceedings imitated under Section 138 of the Act for return of cheque for a sum of Rs.3,50,00,000/- and the Trial Court ordered to pay a sum of Rs.3,05,00,000/- to be paid to the respondent herein and the same is challenged in criminal appeal and an application is filed under Section 389(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court was pleased to allow the same and directed to deposit a sum of Rs.62,00,000/- (i.e., 20% of the fine amount), as a result, the same was deposited. The respondent preferred an application under Section 148(3) of the Act seeking indulgence of the First Appellate Court directing Trial Court to release the said amount and hence, the petitioner herein had filed objections to release the said amount. Inspite of objections being filed, the same was allowed and hence, the present review petition is filed.

3. The office has raised the objections with regard to maintainability of revision petition contending that the order prayed for release of the amount and the same cannot be entertained and there is a bar under Section 397(2) and the same is not maintainable and Crl.A.NO.1150/2023 is still pending before the Sessions Court.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in his argument vehemently contends that the revision petition is maintainable as it is an intermediate order and not an interlocutory order and contends that the revision petition is maintainable since, the order is passed under Section 148(3) of the Act and this court held that the revision petition is maintainable as the order is passed under Section 143A of the Act. The learned counsel in support of his argument relied upon a judgment of the coordinate bench of this court passed in Crl.P.No.5944/2023 dated 28.07.2023, wherein the order dated 17.06.2023 is questioned, directing the petitioner to pay 10% of the cheque amount to the respondent within 60 days from the date of the order, wherein also the issue was raised with regard to the maintainability and this court extracted Section 143A of the Act and also Section 397(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C and held that an intermediate order would mean an order that emerges within a proceeding which culminates in closure of the said intermediate proceeding. The closure happens on account of the rights and liabilities of the parties being determined in the said proceeding; therefore, it is an intermediate order. If it is an intermediate order, the revision would undoubtedly be maintainable before the Court of Sessions. It is also held that the order passed under Section 143A of the Act is not interlocutory order but an intermediate order, as the application is filed, and the application is closed, under the said provision, determining the rights and liabilities of parties qua the application and revision petition before the court of Sessions on the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 143A either allowing the application, or rejecting it, would be maintainable for the aggrieved party, be it the complainant or the accused to approach. In the case on hand, the impugned order is for the release of the amount, which is in deposit and deposit is also made before the Trial Court on the direction of the fact consequent upon entertaining the application filed under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C and sentence is suspended subject to payment of 20% of the amount.

5. Having perused the order impugned, it is clear that on