1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. This petition challenges the order dated 1st April, 2010 passed by the Sessions Court allowing Criminal Revision Application preferred by respondent nos. 1 and 2 from the order of issuance of process by the trial court in the proceedings filed under section 406 and 420 read with 34 of I.P.C. There were two contentions raised by the applicant before the Sessions Court in its challenge to the order. Firstly that the Criminal Revision Application before the Sessions Court was not maintainable as the order of issuance of process is interlocutory order and secondly that the order of issuance of process was quite legal and proper.

3. Mr. Shinde, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of issuance of process is a purely interlocutory order. It does not touch the rights and liabilities of parties. Therefore, in view of the specific provision of sec. 397(2) Criminal Procedure Code the revision application to the Sessions Court against such an order was not maintainable and the Sessions Court ought not to have entertained the same. Mr. Shinde relies upon decision of the Apex Court in Subramanian Sethuraman Versus