( 1. ) THE only question for deci-sion in this revision is whether the revision which is admittedly against an interlocutory order is competent in view of the provisions contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the New Code) which specifically prohibits a revision against any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.

( 2. ) THE present revision arises out of the proceedings under section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as the Old Code) in the Court below which was initiated on the report of the Railway Police, Bilaspur, dated March 28, 1974, whereupon the City Magistrate had passed a preliminary order on 8-4-1974 under Section 145 (1) and an ad interim order of attachment under Section 145 (4) of Old Code. The proceedings thereafter under the orders of the District Magistrate were made over to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bilaspur, who has passed the impugned order on 12-41974.

( 3. ) A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Counsel for the non-applicants as to the maintainability of this revision. His contention was that a revision against an interlocutory order is barred under Sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the New Code.

( 4. ) IN reply, the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that as the report of the police on which the Court below took action was filed on March 28, 1974, i. e. , before the coming into force of the New Code, it is a case of pending proceedings to which by virtue of Section 284 of the New Code, the Old Code shall apply. His argument was that the report of the police was nothing but an application before the Court below on which the proceedings have been initiated; it is that application which is pend. ing decision, and, therefore, by virtue of Section 484 (2) of the New Code, the revision petition under Section 435 of the Old Code is competent. His other argument was that by virtue of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 5 of the New Code also the right of the applicant to file the present revision is saved despite the. repeal of the Old Code.

( 5. ) AFTER hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the firm opinion that this revision has to be dismfssed as not maintainable for the reasons given hereinafter.

( 6. ) AT the outset, I would like to state that the reliance of the learned Counsel for the applicant on Section 5 of the New Coda is preposterous. This argument need be mentioned to be rejected. The section reads thus;

5. Saving. Nothing contained in this Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force. " On the very reading of this section, it is transparently clear that it saves the special or local law or the special jurisdiction or power conferred or procedure prescribed thereunder. It has absolutely no relevance to the present point in controversy. This section by no stretching can be pressed into service by the counsel for the applicant in support of his contention.

( 7. ) I would now turn to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The relevant portion of this is quoted below:

6. Effect of repeal. Where this Act, or any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not (a ). . . (b ). . . (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or (d ). . . (e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture, or punishment as aforesaid; and any such investigation