JAIN, J.—Both these revision applications arise between the same parties and they are off shoots of a protracted trial pending in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Alwar.

2. Har Prasad petitioner filed a complaint against Radhey Lal, Bhagwat Swaroop and Onkar singh Shekhawat for various offences on 18 6-65 During the proceedings Onkarsingh Shekhawat was discharged. The complaint survives and is continuing against Radhey Lal and Bhagwat Swaroop, who are said to be the brothers of the complainant Har Prasad. On 30.8.1972 charge was framed against both the accused persons under section 454, Indian P.C. The complainant examined as many as 40 witnesses on behalf of the prosecution. On 29-8-72 the learned trial Court examined Mangtu Ram as P.W.40. Since other witnesses were not present he closed the prosecution evidence and called upon the accused to enter upon defence. The complainant Har Prasad submitted another application asking the Court to examine Ramjilal, Ramesh Chandra and Motilal on behalf of prosecution. This came to be considered on the next date i.e. 26.9.74. This request was opposed by the accused. The learned trial Magistrate rejected the application of the complainant by his order dated 26 9.74. The orders dated 29.8.74 and 26 9.74 are subject matter of revision No. 495/-1974. These orders were also challenged before the Sessions Judge, Alwar, in revision. The learned Sessions Judge did not accept the contention raised by the complainant, and dismissed the revision application. Hence this revision in this court.

3. On 26 11.74, an application dated 25.11-1974 of the accused to lead secondary evidence was allowed. This order is the subject matter of revision No. 497/-1974 in this Court.

4. Mr. Tibrewal represents the petitioner in revision No. 495/1974. He conceded that the impugned order are interlocutory in character but his contention is that as the trial of the case has been pending before the New Code of Criminal Procedure came into force, the old law will govern the matter as it arises from the pending trial and as such the revision application can be entertained and disposed of by this Court. In the other revision application the petitioner is represented by Mr Kasliwal His submission is that the order dated 28.11.1974 is not an interlocutory order inasmuch as it finally determined the question about allowing secondary evidence in favour of the accused party. He has also argued that the order having arisen from the trial which has been pending since 1965, the old Code of Criminal procedure will govern the revision application. On this basis he urges that the revision application can be entertained and disposed of by this Court under the provisions of the old Code of Criminal Procedure. Another contention that has been raised by him is that power u/section 409, Criminal P.C. are that of an appellate Court. The complainant has a vested right as the trial is undisputably governed by the Old Criminal P.C. and as such an offshoot from the said trial can only be decided under the old Code as the right of the complainant can not be taken away by implication. He has further contended that in any event this Court should exercise inherent power under section 482, Criminal P.C. and quash the order dated 28.11.1974 which is manifestly erroneous.

5. The principal point that arises for consideration in this case is as to the interpretation of section 484(2) (a) of the New Code. It runs to the following effect—

"484(2) Notwithstanding such repeal—(a) if, immediately before the date on which this Code came into force, there is any appeal, application trial, inquiry, or investigation pending, than, such appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation shall be disposed of, continued, held or made, as the case may be in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as in force immediately before such commencement, (hereinafter referred to be the Old Code), as if this Code had not c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document