CHITRA SANKARANARAYANAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is against the order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, in Crl.M.P.No. 776 of 1994 cancelling the bail order. The revision petitioner and her husband are alleged to have committed the offences under Secs. 403, 409, 420, 120-B, 471, 468 and 477-A read with Sec.34, Indian Penal Code as per the complaint of One Gabriel Pakiam in Crime No. 81 of 1994 of Lawspet Police Station, Pondicherry. The revision petitioner and her husband Sankara Narayanan are the two accused persons. They obtained an anticipatory bail on 21.7.1994 from the II Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, who directed them to surrender before 3.8.1994. They did not surrender within the time fixed by the court and in the meanwhile the petition was filed before this Court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to this petitioner and her husband. THIS Court has passed an order on 29.7.1994 staying the operation of the order of the II Additional Sessions Judge granting the anticipatory bail. On 31.7.1994 the revision petitioner and her husband were arrested in Karnataka State and were remanded by the Magistrate on 1.8.1994. The accused persons filed the bail petition in Crl.M.P. No. 1850 of 1994 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pondicherry, praying to release them on bail and the learned Magistrate granted them bail. As against this order of the Learned First Class Magistrate granting bail, the Inspector of C.I.D. Branch, Pondicherry, filed a petition Crl.M.P. No. 776 of 1994 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, for the cancellation of the bail granted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate in Crl.M.P. No. 1850 of 1994. The learned Principal Sessions Judge allowed the petition of the revision petitioner. As against this order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, the second accused has come forward with this revision.

(2.) BEFORE we go into the merit this revision, the preliminary objection raised by the respondent with regard to the maintainability of this revision, has to be considered. According to the learned Public Prosecutor (Pondicherry), under Sec. 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure the powers of revision shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order and therefore the revision against the order cancelling the bail which is interlocutory in nature, is not maintainable.

(3.) THE learned Public Prosecutor very much relies upon the above sentence in the decision, stating specifically, "passing orders for bail.....amount to interlocutory orders against which no revision would lie". So, according to the learned Public Prosecutor in view of this view of various Courts including the Supreme Court, as the application for bail and also the cancellation of the bail are considered to be interlocutory orders, the revision is barred under Sec. 397(2) of the Code and therefore this revision cannot be heard. But the learned counsel for the revision petitioner Mr. Panchapagesan would contend that a mere description of these petitions as miscellaneous petitions or interlocutory petition, will not convert the nature of the order as interlocutory order and as cancellation of the bail itself is a final order, it can be challenged in the revision. To support his argument, he refers to the decision in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, 1978 Crl.L.J. 165. THE observation of the Supreme Court in that case is as follows: