An order cancelling bail granted to an accused is an interlocutory order and a revision therefore, does not lie against such an order in view of Section 397(2). Cr. P.C.

1. - These two revision petitions filed by the petitioner, Nemi Chand Gupta, arise out of two same dated 17.2.1991 order of the Sessions Judge, Kota in two F. I. Rs. No 209/90 and 202/90 Police Station Udyog Nagar, Kota whereby he cancelled bail granted on 4.1.1991 to the petitioner, exercising powers under Section 439(2), Cr. P.C. in cr. case Nos. 30/91 & 31/91.Factual Matrix:

2. Two F.l.Rs came to be lodged at the instance of the complainant-D.C.M. consolidated Ltd. against Nemi Chand Gupta (petitioner).

3. A complaint was filed by the complainant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No 3, Kota which was sent for investigation under Section 156(3). Cr. P.C. and F. I. R No. 202/90 was registered on 8.12.1990 for misappropriation of Rs. 45 36,919/-, criminal breach of trust forgery, and cheating etc. Offences alleged are of Sections 418, 419, 467, , 471,477-A', 120-B, & 403, IPC. Petitioner, Nemi Chand Gupta, was arrested on 14.12.1990.

4. Second report was lodged by the complainant on 18.12.1990 and F.I.R. No. 209/90 was registered at P.S. Udyog Nagar Kota for his act of misappropriation of Rs. 7,98,562 resulting in commission of offences punishable under Sections 403, 408, 418, 419, 420, 467, 477A, and 471, IPC.

5. The petitioner moved for pott-arrest bail which was granted on 4.1.1991 in both the criminal cases, referred to above. However, the complainant, moved for cancellation of bail and the bail granted to the petitioner on 4.1.1991 was cancelled by the Sessions Judge, Kota vide impugned orders dated 17.2.1991. Hence these petitions.

6. At the very inception, Mr. Mehrish, appearing for the complainant raised preliminary objection that the present revision petitions are not maintainable because the orders assailed therein are interlocutory orders and the revision petition against interlocutory orders is barred by the provisions contained in Section 397(2), Cr. P C.

7. Mr. Gupta, appearing on behalf of the complainant & expertise in legal illegible, contended vociforcely that even if assuming for the sake of arguments, the impugned orders cancelling petitioners bail are interlocutory & by virtue of Section 397 (2), Cr. P. C. revision petition against such order albeit does not lie, but he submitted that application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. has also been filed on 2.4.1991 praying therein for treating the revision petitions as criminal misc. petitions under Section 482, Cr. P. C. against such interlocutory orders.

8. Now, it is to be seen as to whether impugned orders can be termed as interlocutory orders. An interlocutory order has not been defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure, itself, but. having been hence filed by the enlightments derived from the catena of decisions of the Apex Court, it can be defined as under:-

"An order which does not decide any of the matters in dispute, or substantially, decide any vital issue in the case against the accused touching the merits of the case or the rights of the parties, will be an interlocutory order."

9. Whether an order is interlocutory or not, can be adjudged keeping in view its effect on the questions or rights of the parties. Taking the aid of the land laid down by Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Bhola v. State (1979 Cr. L.J. 718) , an order cancelling bail granted to an accused does not in any way effect the questions involved in criminal case pending against him or the rights of the parties in relation to any of the questions, that may be involved in that case. Therefore, no revision lay against such an order as it is an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397(2), Cr. P C.

10. Grant of bail or its cancellation does not decide the case finally. Such an order is passed at an intermediate stage, between the commencement and the end of the trial and while passing such order, the Court passing order never enters into merits of the case and while deciding such issue the Court is not obliged to go into merits of the case. Grant or cancellation of bai