ABDUL KAREEMLAL TELGI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner herein, who is accused No. 13 in SC No. 9/ 2001 on the file of the learned Special Judge, XXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as Trial Court' for short) has challenged in this revision petition the correctness of the order dated 7-8-2008 passed in the said case rejecting his application, filed under Section 30 of Karnataka Prisons Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'Prisons Act' for short), seeking direction to the Senior Superintendent, Central Prison, Bangalore, to permit him (accused to receive homely food from outside the prison.

(2.) The said application was opposed by the respondent-CBI by filing written objections to it. After hearing both the sides, the trial Court passed the impugned order rejecting the said application. Therefore, the revision petitioner-accused has challenged' the correctness of the said order.

(3.) At the outset, Sri. B. R. Nanjundaiah, the learned senior counsel and senior special Public Prosecutor appearing For the respondent-CBI strongly contended that since the impugned order is an interlocutory order, passed in the said Sessions Case during its pendency, the present revision petition challenging its correctness is not maintainable. As against this, Sri. Shankarappa, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner strongly contended that though the said application of this petitioner was an interim application, the impugned order, passed by the trial Court, rejecting the said application, has decided right of the petitioner to get homely food from outside the prison and therefore the impugned order cannot be termed as 'interlocutory order', hence the present revision petition 'is maintainable'.