(1.) SATISH and 80 others whose names have been given in the Memo of Revision have preferred this application in revision against the order of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, dated 9th July, 1975 dismissing the application in revision and upholding the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Roorkee, dated 12th December 1947. under Section 111 Cr. P. C. to show cause why they should not furnish personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- each to keep peace for a period of the year. It further appears that a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the State that order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate being an interlocutory order it could not be revisable in view of the provisions of section 397 (2) (New) Cr. P. C. A Division Bench Judgment in Criminal Revision No. 1347 of 1975 Bindbasini and others v. State has been filed in this case which shows that a Division Bench of this court held that the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate under section 107/111 Cr. P. C. is an interlocutory order and section 397 (2) Cr. P. C. (New) bars the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court and the Sessions Judge with respect, to such an order. In view of the said decision it is obvious that the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State prevails and it is held that this application in revision being also against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, dated December 1, 1974, which is "only an interlocutory order, filed by the applicants is not maintainable.
(2.) THE application in revision is accordingly dismissed. Revision dismissed.