The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'interlocutory order' under section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing that orders substantially affecting the rights of the accused cannot be considered interlocutory and are subject to revision.

(Hearing Through Video Conferencing) ORDER : – Applicant has filed this criminal revision challenging order dated 28-9-2020, by which application filed by applicant under section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected by Special Judge, NDPS Act District Rewa.

2. Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that Honda Activa Scooter 4G bearing registration No. UP70EC7781 was seized by the Police in Crime No. 203/2020 under sections 8, 21, 22, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act and section 5/13 of Drug Control Act. Applicant is registered owner of the vehicle and he was falsely implicated in the criminal case. He had given the scooter to one Rahul Mishra to ferry his ailing father to hospital. Applicant has no role in the crime committed by the co-accused persons. Police had also seized one Redmi mobile phone having his Jio Sim and Idea Sim. It is submitted that said articles may be damaged if they are allowed to remain in custody of the police.

3. Applicant has filed an application under section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for giving the seized articles on superdginama during pendency of trial. Counsel appearing for the applicant had relied on the judgment of Rajasthan High Court reported in 1988 Cri.L.J. 475, Ganesh vs. State and another. Counsel for the applicant relied on para-7 of the said judgment. It was held that order passed under section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a final order and not merely an interlocutory order. On basis of said order, it was argued by counsel appearing for the applicant that criminal revision against the impugned order dated 28-9-2020 filed by the applicant is maintainable.

4. Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer of applicant for releasing the articles on superdginama on merits of the case. It is submitted by him there is possibility that applicant may use vehicle again for committing offence, therefore, application has rightly been rejected by the Court of Sessions.

5. Before hearing the parties on merits of the case, it is to be examined whether impugned order is an interlocutory order or a final order against which revision filed by the applicant is maintainable.

6. Before examining the said issue, sections 457 and 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure is to be considered. Section 397(2) lays down as under :

“(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding”. Section 457(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down as under : “(1) Whenever the seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.”

7. The meaning and ambit of the expression “interlocutory order” as used in section 397(2) has been considered by the Supreme Court in several decisions. In Smt. Parmeshwari Devi vs. State and another, AIR 1977 SC 403, petitioner-Smt. Parmeshwari Devi had in response to an order under section 94 of the Old Code filed a reply expressing her inability to produce the documents stating the circumstances pertaining thereto. She was not a party to the trial, but even then the Magistrate issued order on 8th August, 1974 i.e. after coming into force of the new Code, directing her to attend Court so as to enable it to put her a few questions for satisfying itself regarding whereabouts of the documents. The said order was challenged in revision invoking the bar of section 397(2) of the Code. The Supreme Court observed:- “The Code does not define an interlocutory order, but it obviously is an intermediate order, made during the preliminary stages of an