The High Court has the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to interfere with an interlocutory order passed by a trial court to prevent abuse of the process of the court and to secure the ends of justice.

( 1 ) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel of both sides and on perusal of the materials-on-record, it appears that on the basis of the self-same incident canning P. S. Case Nos. 5 and 6, dated 6. 6. 1980 were started and separate charge-sheet was submitted in both the cases. Both the cases were also committed to the Court of "sessions and by an order of this Hon'ble Court passed on 14. 6. 1988, a direction was issued to the effect that both the cases were to be heard and disposed of by the same Court of Sessions one after another.

( 2 ) IT appears that in Canning P. S. Case No. 5 dated 6. 6. 80, the evidence is closed and it is pending at the argument stage. As regards the Canning p. S. Case No. 6, dated 6. 6. 80, on the basis of which a case Leing S. P. 1 (1) of 1990 was started, is pending at the stage of hearing of argument.

( 3 ) IT appears from the materials-on-record that prior to the close of the prosecution evidence, a petition was filed before the learned Sessions Court on 9. 7. 2003 praying for examination of 10 prosecution witnesses alleging that they were vital witnesses. It also appears that without disposing of that application, the trial Court proceeded to pass an order closing the prosecution evidence and opted to examine the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter on 1. 8. 2003 passed the impugned order rejecting the prayer as made by the defecto-complainant on 9. 7. 2003. Ground given in the said order is that sufficient opportunity was given to the prosecution to produce those witnesses but witnesses were not produced. Accordingly, the Court had no other alternative but to close the evidence and then proceeded with the examination of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

( 4 ) THE instant application is filed under Section 401 as well as under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It1s a cardinal principle of law that Section 401 has no independent application bereft of Section 397 of the Code. Under sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the Code, power of revision is barred in respect of an interlocutory order. So, it may be argued that against the impugned order being an interlocutory order, no revision lies and accordingly it is barred under Section 397 and consequently also under section 401 of the Code. It is needless to mention that the test of an interlocutory order depends on the question whether the order finally disposes a case or not. This impugned order practically does not dispose of the case finally and accordingly, it is to be treated as an interlocutory order and as such the power of revision cannot be exercised in respect of the impugned order. Accordingly, Section 401 of the Code has no manner of application in this case.

( 5 ) NOW it comes for consideration whether under Section 482 of the code, this Court is competent to pass any order on the impugned order. It is also a settled principle of law that if there is a specific bar in respect of any order underthe provision of the Code, inherent power cannot be exercised to rectify the defect and so from this stand point the interlocutory order passed by the trial Court cannot be interfered with.

( 6 ) IT appears from the record, as it is indicated hereinabove, that an application for examination of the remaining 10 vital witnesses was filed on 9. 7. 2003 i. e. before passing of the order of closing the prosecution evidence, not to speak of the examination of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the impugned order, the learned sessions Judge considered that the petition filed on 9. 7. 2003 cannot be considered as the case was fixed for argument. But it is not clarified that the petition filed on 9. 7. 2003 was required to be taken into consideration before closure of the prosecution evidence. It is also to be mentioned that the trial court did not consider the provision under Section 311 of the Code whic