Order of cancellation of bail is an interlocutory.

This revision raises an important point of law which lends itself to subtle arguments and which is also bereft of authority of this Court.

2. Now to abreviate statement of facts which project this legal issue. Somaram, the revision petitioner, was accused of kidnapping Chandrakala, a minor aged 16½ years daughter of the first respondent Jawanthuraj Lunia, out of the lawful guardianship of her parents. The revision petitioner was employed by the first respondent Jawanthuraj Lunia. On the complaint of Jawanthuraj Lunia, father of Chandrakala, a case was registered by the second respondent. The minor girl was traced in the company of the revision petitioner at Tirupati. The revision petitioner was arrested and later released on bail. The girl was handed over to the first respondent, her father. Originally the revision petitioner was ordered to be released on bail on condition that he should reside at Tiruchirappalli and report everyday before the Cantonment police, but later the condition was modified and he was allowed to report everyday at the C-1 Police Station, Madras The revision petitioner is alleged to have printed pamphlets and distributed them to public and sent a copy to the father of the minor girl and another copy to the minor girl herself. In that pamphlet it was stated that Chandrakala attained majority and is not a minor, that she and the revision petitioner were married and that she is being detained by her father against her wishes. The father of Chandrakala then filed an application in Criminal M. P.No. 3523 of 1979 on the file of the Court of Session Madras, for cancellation of the bail granted already as the revision petitioner was interfering with the course of justice. The revision petitioner contested the application and contended that he had not distributed any pamphlet and that he never printed the pamphlet The learned Sessions Judge allowed that application and cancelled the bail granted to the revision petitioner. It is against that order, a revision has now been filed.

3. An objection is now taken that the order of the Sessions Judge being interlocutory, the revision petition is not maintainable in view of subsection (2) of section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. As to what an interlocutory order is, has not been defined anywhere in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Certain rulings point out the distinction between final and interlocutory orders, which would render some assistance in defining the meaning of ‘interlocutory orders’ in subsection (2) of section 397 of the Code. In Mohan Lal v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court observed thus:

“The question as to whether a judgment or an order is final or not has been the subject matter of a number of decisions; yet no single general test for finality has so fa been laid down The reason probably is that judgment or order may be final for one purpose and interlocutory for another or final as to part and interlocutory as to part. The meaning of the two words ‘final’ and ‘interlocutory’ has, therefore, to be considered separately in relation to the particular purpose for which it is required. However, generally speaking, a judgment or order which determines the principal matter in question is termed final. It may be final although it directs enquiries or is made on an interlocutory application or reserves liberty to apply. (Halsbury's Laws of England 3rd Edition, Vol. 222, 742-743). In some of the English decisions where this question arose, one or the other of the following four tests was applied.

1. Was the order made upon an application such that a decision in favour of either party would determine the main dispute ?

2. Was it made upon an application upon which the main dispute could have been decided?

3. Does the order as made determine the dispute?

4. If the order in question is reversed, would the action have to go on?”

That was a case where after an enquiry under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Judicial Magistrate,