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 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge even in the revisional jurisdiction. However, as Shri Desai, the learned counsel has fully canvassed that point and as such with due deference to him as also it is stated at the Bar that the Sessions Court is confronted with this aspect time and again, I deem it proper and desirable to refer to it though not in all its details as I am firm in my opinion that in reality it is hardly capablo of creating any controversy.

22. To say that the attachment of the flat and its sealing is an inter-locutory order obviously be, even ex-facie, misconception of the notion of an 'interlocutory order'. I can derive full reinforcement to this conclusion on the basis of certain observations in some of the judicial pronouncement which the Court would be well justified to rely upon for furnishing an analogy and guide lines. What is the concept of 'interlocutory order' has been highlighted in Amar Nath v. State of Haryana1, which is reiterated in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra2 and we have also in that category a recent pronouncement in V. C. Shukla v. States. The ratio is well enunciated and really speaking it is not necessary to have a deeper probe, though some a5.pects can be incidentally referred to in that limited field. In Amar Nath's case (Supra) on the basis of the F. I. R. and on holding investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against some persons except the appellants therein as in the opinion of the police no case was made out against them. The appellants, therefore, were set at liberty by the learned Magistrate, who accepted the police report. A revision petition filed by the complainant in the Sessions Court met with no success. A private complaint then came to be filed by the complainant against a1\ the accused persons including the appellants which also met with the same fate of dismissal, though on merits. The said order of dismissal was, however, set aside by the Sessions Court and the complaint was revived. The learned Magistrate in pursuance thereof, without holding and directing any enquiry, straightway issued summonses against the appellants which was tantamount to issuance of process, with the resultant consequence that the appellants therein were put for trial. The High Court declined to interfere on the ground that the order of issuing summons was an interlocutory order; which order was upset by the Supreme Court holding that it was a matter of moment and it decided the serious question as to the rights of the appellants to put on trial and as such was not an interlocutory order and consequently the revision was declared to be competent. A full survey and resume of all the relevant aspects vis-a-vis the. concept of interlocutory order was taken. An interlocutory order was. being equated with

Click Here to Read the rest of this document