JUDGMENT- [After dealing with the submissions made on behalf of the parties in paragraphs 1 to 20 the Judgment proceeds.]

21. I would have pulled down the curtain on the proceeding with this conclusion at this point as it is not necessary to consider whether the impugned order of the learned Magistrate is interlocutory or not. It is· obviously because the matter is now seized of this Court and there may not be those limitations which are sought to be placed on the revisional powers of the Sessions Court vis-a-vis an interlocutory order and in a fit case this Court is empowered under the inherent powers to upset the impugned order. It is from that point of view, I am of the opinion that when the impugned order is manifestly unjust and untenable in law, this Court will be justified in exercising its discretion under the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code and cannot assume the role of a salient and passive spectator. Once this premise is accepted, then the question as to whether the learned Sessions Judge should have interfered in the revisional jurisdiction must pale in the background, though, I would hasten to add that there is abundant justification in the interference b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document