BERI, C. J—By his order dated October 19, 1974 the learned Additional Sessions Judge Jalore cancelled the bail of Dhola, Asu and Lalla accused of an offence under sec. 302 read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in exercise of his power under sec. 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the New Code"). This order is being assailed firstly on the ground that the powers for cancellation of bail reside in the High Court and the Court of Session under sec. 430(2) of the New Code and the learned Additional Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction Secondly, it is urged that the grant of bail by the learned Magistrate was an interlocutory order against which no revision is now competent under sec. 397(2) of the New Code and the learned Additional Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to accept the revision under the New Code.

2. Mr. Purohit contests both the contentions.

3. A brief resume of facts seems to be necessary. A challan was presented before the Judicial Magistrate, Sanchore on September 17,1974 against the above named three applicants under sec. 302 read with sec. 34, Indian Penal Code. On September 2, 1974, the applicants moved an application for bail which was rejected by the learned Magistrate., After the presentation of the challan another application was moved and that was allowed by him by his order dated September 24, 1974. The State was aggrieved and it moved two applications before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore; one was under sec. 439(2) for the cancellation of the bail and the other was by way of revision under sec. 397 of the New Code.

4. Sec. 397 of the New Code reads :

"S. 397__(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 purposes of 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 m 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 this sub-section and of section 398.

(2) The powers of revision conferred by subsection (i) 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 sec. has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further apphcation by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.

This section introduces a discernable effort on the part of the legislature to cut short the journey of criminal litigation in two directions. The first is that interlocutory orders are no longer revisable and the second is that the revision application is not repeatable in Courts of two tiers as under the Old Criminal Procedure Code. While frequent revision applications of interlocutory orders had a tendency of paralysing the progress of an inquiry and a trial the repeating of revision applications before District Magistrate Sessions Judge and High Court gave birth to multiplicity of proceedings. Without damaging the general superintendence enshrined in the superior Courts under sec. 397(1), which repeats verbatim the language of sec. 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Old Code") the legislature has now introduced these two blockades to lend speed to criminal justice. The short question agitated before me is whether the grant or refusal of bail is an interlocutory order.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor states that it is not interlocutory order

Click Here to Read the rest of this document