Interlocutory orders passed without jurisdiction which constitute nullities can be interfered with in revision under Section 401 and in appropriate cases under Section 482.

JUDGEMENT

G. K. Misra, C. J. :- Petitioners are inhabitants of village Ghantasahi in Nayagarh police station in the district of Puri. In a proceeding initiated under Section 107 of the Criminal P.C. 1898 (hereinafter to be referred to as the old Code) a notice was issued to them under Sec. 114 of the old Code on 23-2-1974 by a Magistrate 1st Class, Nayagarh, calling upon them to show cause why they should not be ordered to execute a bond for Rs. 200/- with one surety each for the like amount for a period of one year for keeping the peace. On 4-7-1974 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nayagarh, passed an order calling upon the petitioners to execute interim bonds under Section 117(3). The revision has been filed to quash his order.

The substantive part of the impugned order runs thus :

"On hearing the Advocates for the parties, I am convinced that complication and trouble are there in the village covering on several matters such as the right of passage on some land which were discovered to have belonged to a member of one party during course of last settlement, over alleged misconduct of the said member Shri Pabitra Mohanty with wife of another member of the same party, catching fish from "Koth" land and not allowing water to be taken to one party"s land. Whether or not the allegations are true, at the present moment, on these grounds, police have prayed for execution of interim bonds by both parties. Had it been the case of the police that only one party would execute interim bond, it would perhaps have been a different matter. Since the police prayed for execution of interim bonds by both parties in both the cases, I consider it as a balanced view in order to maintain peace. Without reference to the merit of the case to be decided finally as regards execution of bond, it is ordered that both party members should execute interim bonds, under Section 117(3), Criminal P.C. for Rs. 200/- (Rupees two hundred) each to keep peace till conclusion of the enquiry."

Section 484(2)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as the new Code) prescribes that if any enquiry is pending on 1-4-1974 when the new Code came into force, the same would be continued and disposed of under the provisions of the old Code as if the new Code had not come into force. The proceeding initiated under the old Code was pending on 1-4-1974 and must be continued under that Code. The petitioners were called upon to execute interim bonds under Section 117(3) of the old Code, the corresponding provision under the new Code being Section 116(3).

2. Right to file a revision is not a vested right. The impugned order was passed after the new Code came into force. The petitioners shall have to invoke the revisional jurisdiction, not under the old Code but under the new Code. The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under the new Code is dealt with in Sections 397, 398 and 401. The validity of the revision must, therefore, be determined with reference to the provisions of the new Code.

3. Section 117(3) of the old Code under which interim bonds were called upon, so far as material runs thus :

"Pending the completion of the inquiry under Sub-Section (1), the Magistrate, if he considers that immediate measures are necessary for the prevention of a breach of the peace or disturbance of the public tranquility or the commission of any offence or for the public safety, may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct the person in respect of whom the order under Section 112 has been made to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour until the conclusion of the inquiry, and may detain him in custody until such bond is executed, or in default of execution, until the inquiry is concluded :

xx xx xx xx"

The scope and ambit of this Sub-Section is no longer res integra. In AIR 1971 SC 2481 : (1971 Cri LJ 1715), (Madhu Limaye v. Ved Murti) a Constitution Bench observed thus :

"16. xx xx The Magistrate could