SOMARAM Vs. JEWANTHARAJ LUNIA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision raises an important point of law which lends itself to subtle arguments and which is also bereft of authority of this Court.

(2.) NOW to abbreviate statement of facts which project this legal issue, Somaram, the revision petitioner, was accused of kidnapping Chandrakala, a minor aged 16 years, daughter of the first respondent Jawanthuraj Lunia, out of the lawful guardianship of her parents. The revision petitioner was employed by the first respondent Jawanthuraj Lunia. On the complaint of Jawanthuraj Lunia, father of Chandrakala, a ease was registered by the second respondent. The minor girl was traced in the company of the revision petitioner at Tirupati. The revision petitioner was arrested and later released on bail. The girl was handed over to the first respondent, her father. Originally the revision petitioner was ordered to be released on bail on condition that he should reside at Tiruchirapalli and report everyday before the Cantonment Police, but later the condition was modified and he was allowed to report everyday at the C -l police station, Madras The revision petitioner is alleged to have printed pamphlets and distributed them to the public and sent a copy to the father of the minor girl and another copy to the minor girl herself. In that pamphlet it was stated that Chandrakala attained majority and is not a minor, that she and the revision petitioner were married and that she is being detained by her father against her wishes. The father of Chandrakala then filed an application in Criminal M.P. No. 3523 of 1979 on the file of the Court of Session, Madras, for cancellation of the bail granted already as the revision petitioner was interfering with the course of justice. The revision petitioner contested the application and contended that he had not distributed any pamphlet and that he never printed the pamphlet. The learned Sessions Judge allowed that application and cancelled the bail granted to the revision petitioner. It is against that order, a revision has now been filed.

(3.) AS to what an interlocutory order is has not been defined anywhere in the Code of Criminal procedure. Certain rulings point out the distinction between final and interlocutory orders, which would render some assistance in defining the meaning of inter locator orders' in Sub -s. (2) of S. 397 of the Code. In Mohanlal v. State of Gujarat : 1968 2 S.C.R. 685 : 1968 L.W. (Crl.) 102 the Supreme Court observed thus: