The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the maintainability of a revision under Section 397 /401 of Cr.P.C. and the applicability of Section 397 (2) of Cr.P.C. in relation to the impugned order.

Akhtar Husain Khan, J. -- Heard learned counsel for revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for opposite party no.4.

2. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.4 have raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this revision moved under Section 397 /401 of Cr.P.C.

3. It has been contended by learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.4 that impugned order dated 22.09.2015 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge, Barabanki under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. in Criminal Misc. Case No.965 of 2014 relating to Case No.2509 of 2014 arising out of Crime No.436 of 2013, under Sections 467, 468, 471, 419, 420, 120-B IPC, Police Station Kotwali City Barabanki, District Barabanki is an interlocutory order and petitioners have opportunity to move bail application before this Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, neither revision under Section 397 /401 of Cr.P.C. nor petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is maintainable before this Court in view of bar provided in sub-section (2) of Section 397 of Cr.P.C.

4. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.4 has placed reliance upon following judicial pronouncements:

"(i) Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra; 1978 (15) ACC 184 (SC)= AIR 1978 SC 47

(ii) Arun Shankar Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and others; 1999 (2) JIC 570 (SC)= (1999) 6 SCC 146

(iii) Mohit alias Sonu and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another; 2013 (3) JIC 297 (SC)=AIR 2013 SC 2248

(iv) Amar Nath and others Vs. State of Haryana and others; AIR 1977 SC 2185

(v) Bhola and others Vs. State; 1979 (16) ACC 155=1979 Cri.L.J. 718

(vi) Surya Narain and others Vs. State of U.P. and others; 1999 Cri.L.J. 496"

5. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.4 has further placed reliance on judgments of High Court Allahabad in following cases:

"(i) Sri Pal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh decided on 05.04.1988

(ii) Nafisul Hasan Vs. State of U.P. and another decided in Application (u/s 482 of Cr.P.C.) No.21187 of 2015 decided on 27.07.2015

(iii) Jitendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh decided on 23.02.1994."

6. Learned counsel for revisionist contended that impugned order is not an interlocutory order. Therefore, revision under Section 397 /401 of Cr.P.C. as well as petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. both are maintainable before this Court.

7. Learned counsel for revisionist has relied upon the judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Sami Ullaha Vs. Superintendent, Narcotic Central Bureau; 2009 (65) ACC 303 (SC)= 2009 AIR (SC) 1357 in support of his contention:

8. I have gone through the case laws referred by learned counsel for the rival parties.

9. In the case of Sami Ullaha Vs. Superintendent, Narcotic Central Bureau (Supra), revision was filed against cancellation of bail before High Court but the High Court dismissed revision. Thereafter, feeling aggrieved, accused revisionist moved Criminal Appeal No.1748 of 2008 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2175 of 2008 before Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble Apex Court allowed the criminal appeal and passed following order:

"19. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. The order dated 15.03.2005 cancelling the bail is set aside and the revision application filed in the High Court stands allowed."

10. In the case of Amar Nath and others Vs. State of Haryana and others (Supra), petition was moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. as well as under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. before High Court against summoning order but High Court dismissed the petition in limine and refused to entertain on the ground that the summoning order passed by Judicial Magistrate is an interlocutory order, therefore, revision is barred by virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 397 of Cr.P.C. High Court further held that since the revision is barred, the court could not take up the case under Section