Rivision against an interlocutory order will not lie.

This revision is against the order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, in Crl.M.P.No. 776 of 1994 cancelling the bail order. The revision petitioner and her husband are alleged to have committed the offences under Secs. 403, 409, 420, 120-B, 471, 468 and 477-A read with Sec.34, Indian Penal Code as per the complaint of One Gabriel Pakiam in Crime No. 81 of 1994 of Lawspet Police Station, Pondicherry. The revision petitioner and her husband Sankara Narayanan are the two accused persons. They obtained an anticipatory bail on 27. 1994 from the II Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, who directed them to surrender before 8. 1994. They did not surrender within the time fixed by the court and in the meanwhile the petition was filed before this Court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to this petitioner and her husband. This Court has passed an order on 27. 1994 staying the operation of the order of the II Additional Sessions Judge granting the anticipatory bail. On 37. 1994 the revision petitioner and her husband were arrested in Karnataka State and were remanded by the Magistrate on 8. 1994. The accused persons filed the bail petition in Crl.M.P. No. 1850 of 1994 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pondicherry, praying to release them on bail and the learned Magistrate granted them bail. As against this order of the Learned First Class Magistrate granting bail, the Inspector of C.I.D. Branch, Pondicherry, filed a petition Crl.M.P. No. 776 of 1994 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, for the cancellation of the bail granted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate in Crl.M.P. No. 1850 of 1994. The learned Principal Sessions Judge allowed the petition of the revision petitioner. As against this order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, the second accused has come forward with this revision.

2. Before we go into the merit this revision, the preliminary objection raised by the respondent with regard to the maintainability of this revision, has to be considered. According to the learned Public Prosecutor (Pondicherry), under Sec. 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure the powers of revision shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order and therefore the revision against the order cancelling the bail which is interlocutory in nature, is not maintainable.

3. Sec. 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows:

"Sec.397 Calling for records to exercise powers of revision: 1. ....

2. The powers of revision conferred by Sub-sec. (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding." According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the orders on the bail application or cancellation of the bail are interlocutory in nature and as such orders cannot be challenged in revision under Sec. 397(2) of the Code, it is a bar for this revision. He draws support for his argument from a decision in T.V. Hariprasad v. State of A.P., 1977 Crl.L.J. 471, wherein the Andhra Pradesh High Court has specifically held that the cancellation of the bail under Sec.437(5), Code is an interlocutory order and revision under Sec.397(2) of the Code is not maintainable even though the grant of bail can be considered by the Sessions Judge under Sec.439 of the Code. The Bench of the Orissa High Court also has taken the same view in Nilu v. State, 1983 Crl.L.J. 1590. In that case also, it was held that orders granting, revising or cancelling bail are interlocutory orders against which revision is barred under Sec.397(2) of the Code. The learned Public Prosecutor relies upon the observation of the Supreme Court also in Amarnath v. State of Haryana, 1977 Crl.L.J. 1891, wherein it is observed:

"....The term interlocutory order’ in Sec. 397(2) of the Code 1973 has been used in a restricted sense and not in any broad or artistic sense. It merely denotes orders on a purely interim or temporary nature which do not d