LILLY FRANKLIN Vs. WILSON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the motion of the petitioner the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fort Cochin initiated proceedings under S.145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on 17th June, 1977 issued the following order:

(2.) The 1st respondent was served with a copy of the order. He filed Criminal Revision Petition 57 of 1977 before the Court of Session, Ernakulam. The 3rd Additional Sessions Judge overruled the objection that the revision petition was barred in view of S.397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Judge held that a composite order invoking the powers under S.145(1) is unsustainable in law. The court further held that a case of emergency was not made out on the facts and circumstances of the case.

(3.) All the above grounds are challenged in this revision petition. I shall first deal with the maintainability of the revision petition before the Court of Sessions. S.397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure states that the powers of revision under S.397(1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order pass d in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. The contention put forward on behalf of the petitioner is that neither the preliminary order under S.145(1) nor the order of attachment under S.146(1) finally disposed of the proceedings before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and therefore the order dated 17th June, 1977 is an interlocutory order coming under S.397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.