DEENA NATH ACHARYA Vs. DAITARI CHARAN PATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS may be stated in short. The petitioner is an Assistant Settlement Officer and was in charge of the Baripada Town Settlement Camp on the date of occurrence. The accused were working as Amin, Inspector, Draftsman etc. in the same Settlement Camp on purely contract basis. Some days prior to the date of occurrence opposite parties were agitating for service benefits and resorted to strike. On 5.3.1974 the petitioner was not able to deposit undisbursed money as it was late after his attending to a staff meeting. He carried with him Government money amounting to Rs. 881.50 p. with challans and other papers in a bag to deposit the same next day. While he was coming from the office on a cycle the accused came from behind, caught hold of and assaulted him. They took away the cash and threw away the papers kept in the bag. The petitioner was rescued after the intervention of the police. When he came to his sense he found that the bag was lying on the ground and the money was missing. F.I.R. was lodged on the spot. After registering the case under Sections 379 and 147, I.P.C. the police started investigation. Finally charge -sheet was submitted only against three out of twelve accused under Sections 323 341 and 504/34, I.P.C. The petitioner filed a protest petition as no charge -sheet was submitted against nine of the accused persons and as the investigation under Sections 147 and 379, I.P.C. had been dropped. A complaint was made against the inaction of the investigating officer. The petition was rejected by the Sub -divisional Judicial Magistrate, Baripada, on 4.9.1974. A revision application before the Sessions Judge is pending.

(2.) MR . Mohanty for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is without jurisdiction as it is contrary to proviso (b) to Section 202(1), Criminal Procedure Code Mr. M.N. Das, on the other hand, contends that a second criminal revision at the instance of the petitioner does not lie. Both the contentions require careful examination.

(3.) WE have discussed at length in Crl. Misc. Case No. 221 of 1974, (Bhima Naik v. State in which judgement was delivered on 16.5.1975 : (1975 Cri LJ 1923) (Orissa) that an interlocutory order without jurisdiction is a nullity and it can be interfered with in revision. Such an interlocutory order being no order at all in the eye of law Section 397(2) is not a bar and is revisable under Section 401. The learned Sessions Judge failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him in not quashing the impugned order.