Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J.

1. Whether an order taking cognizance and issuance of process is an interlocutory order and therefore not revisable under the revisional jurisdiction is a vexed question of law which on several occasions had been the subject matter of adjudication and the present one is one such occasion. As answer to this question has far reaching consequence, I prefer to analyse the same in little detail.

2. Aforesaid question arises on a simple background, i.e. the complainant filed a petition of complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, inter alia, alleging commission of offence u/s. 420, 461, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate examined the complainant on solemn affirmation and after an inquiry u/s. 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as the Code, by order dated 12.12.2005 passed in Complaint Case No. 798 (C) of 2004, being prima facie satisfied that offence u/s. 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code is made out, took cognizance of the offence and directed for issuance of process against the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved by the same, filed Cr. Revision No. 81 of 2005 before the Sessions Judge, West Champaran who by order dated 2.4.2005, dismissed the revision application as not maintainable.

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of taking cognizance, directing for issuance of process by the Magistrate and dismissing the revision application preferred against the aforesaid order as not maintainable by the Sessions Judge, petitioner has preferred this application.

4. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar No. 1, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the order taking cognizance and directing for issuance of process, is not an interlocutory order and, therefore, amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the Court.

5. Dr. Maya Nand Jha, Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State, however, submits that the order taking cognizance and issuance of process is a step in the direction of trial and as such, it is an interlocutory order and hence, in view of the bar put by sec. 397(2) of the Code order taking cognizance and issuance of process, is not subject to revision.

6. The rival submission necessitates examination of the scheme of the Code and what would be the meaning of the expression interlocutory order used in Sec. 397(2) of the Code. sec. 397 of the Code, which is relevant for the purpose reads as follows: sec. 397.- Calling for records to exercise powers of revision.-

(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding. Sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record.

Explanation.- All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this Sub-sec. and of sec. 398.

(2) The powers of revision conferred by Sub-sec. (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.

(3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the either of them.

7. The aforesaid provision confers power to the High Court and the Sessions Judge to examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior criminal court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order p