ANKAPUTTASWAMY Vs. PAPEGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since an important question of law is involved in these petitions, the same have been referred to the Division Bench by Nesargi, J. The question of law involved is whether the impugned orders are "interlocutory orders" as contemplated under Section 397 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and therefore the revisions in question are barred?

(2.) The facts that gave rise to these petitions briefly stated are these: These petitions have been filed under Section 397 (1) of the Code. Cr. R.P. No. 205 of 1975 has been filed by the respondents in Cr. Mis. No. 24 of 1974-75 on the file of the Sr. Divisional Magistrate, Pandavapura, against the order of that Court made under Section 112 of the Code; Cr. R.P. 296 of 1975 has been filed by some of the respondents in No. CR/MAG/40/74-75 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Kopala, Raichur District, against the order of that Court taking steps against them under Section 107 of the Code; Cr. R.P. 308 of 1975 has been filed by the respondents in Case No. Cr. P.C. 275. R-5 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hospet, against the order of that Court for proceeding against them under Section 111 of the Code; Cr. R.P. No. 311 of 1975 has been filed by the respondents in C. M. C. No. 900 of 1975 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chikballapur, questioning the correctness of the order made by that Court under Section 107 read with Section 111 of the Code; and Cr. R.P. No. 202 1975 has been filed by the first member of the second party in MAG/CA/32/74-75 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Madhugiri, against the order of that Court attaching petition schedule immoveable properties under Section 146 (2) of the Code.

(3.) During the hearing of these petitions a preliminary objection was raised about the competency of these revision petitions under Section 397 of the Code on the ground that the impugned orders were only interlocutory orders and as such Section 397 (2) of the Code was a bar for approaching this Court in revision. Several decisions were cited at the Bar by either side before the learned single Judge in support of their respective contentions.