ORDER :

1. The petitioner has filed the present Cr.M.P. challenging order of the Revisional Court dated 10.05.2021 passed by the Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Revision No. 66/2021 affirming the warrant of arrest dated 03.04.2021 issued in pursuance of order dated 19.03.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No. 11840/2021.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the witnesses who were to be examined as prosecution witnesses as well as the petitioner could not appear before the trial Court on 19.03.2019 as on 19.03.2021, father of the accused was ill therefore, he himself could not attend the court and due to counsel’s engagement in another case, the counsel also could not appear before the trial Court, therefore, warrant of arrest has been issued against him. As such, he has moved an application through his counsel under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of arrest warrant on 31.03.2021, but the same has been rejected by the Judicial Magistrate First Class and ordered for issuance of warrant of arrest on 03.04.2021. The petitioner has preferred Revision Petition before the Revision Court i.e. Fifth Additional Sessions’ Judge Bilaspur.

3. Learned Revisional Court vide its order dated 10.05.2021 has dismissed the revision petition treating the order dated 03.04.2021, by which the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has issued warrant of arrest against the petitioner, as interlocutory order and held that revision is not maintainable.

4. Both these orders have been challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing present Cr.M.P. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Sessions Judge has also not examined the fact that Judicial Magistrate has already rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of warrant and the right of liberty of the petitioner-accused was being adversely affected by the order of the trial Court, therefore, it cannot be termed as interlocutory order. The Revisional Court without examining the provisions and without considering the law on the subject has held that order dated 03.04.2021 is interlocutory order as it does not finally dispose off the matter in dispute.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments has examined the orders which are interlocutory in nature or in the nature of final order. The first Judgment on the subject is in case of Amarnath and Others vs. State of Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 137 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the order, which substantially affects the rights of the accused or decides certain rights of the parties, cannot be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar a revision. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced below :-

“6. Let us now proceed to interpret the provisions of s. 397 against the historical background of these facts. Subsection (2) of s. 397 of the 1973 Code may be extracted thus :

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

The main question which falls for determination in this appeal is as to what is the connotation of the term "interlocutory order" as appearing in Sub-section (2) of Section 397 which bars any revision of such an order by the High Court. The term "interlocutory order" is a term of well-known legal significance and does not present any serious diffident. It has been used in various statutes including the Code of Civil Procedure, Letters Patent of the High Courts and other like statutes. In Webster's New World Dictionary "interlocutory" has been defined as an order other than final decision. Decided cases have laid down that interlocutory orders to be appealable must be those which decide 'the rights and liabilities of the parties concerning a particular aspect. It seems to, us that the term "interlocutory order" in Section 397(2