BUTA RAM MOTI RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Advocate General has taken a preliminary objection in this revision petition that the eame is not maintainable and is barred under the provisions of Section 397 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (shortly called the Code of 1973), inas-much as it is an interlocutory order.

(2.) THE petitioner was arrested for an alleged offence under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused-petitioner filed an application before the Additional Sessions Judge that during the course of investigation, the investigating Officer while taking the dead body of Smt. Lila took in possession two letters written in the hand of the deceased and which letters were in the possession of the police and that the same be produced in the court, but according to the prosecution, no such letters were found or were taken into possession while the dead body of Smt. Lila Was taken into possession by the police. The Additional Sessions Judge rejected this application holding that the application and the affidavit of the accused did not make out any case how those two alleged letters were material for the purpose of framing the charge in the case. Further that the police officer had denied the existence of any such letters or to have taken into, possession any such letters when the dead-body was recovered. It is against this order that the accused-petitioner has filed this revision petition.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contends that this is a revision petition arising out of an order passed in a case which was pending in the courts below before the enforcement of the Code of 1973 in which this new provision has been inserted that no revision petition shall lie against the interlocutory order. According to him, it is the old Code which would apply in the present case. He has tried to support his contention from Narain Mahton v. Mahesh Prasad Singh 1975 Cri LJ 1400 (Pat) in which the interlocutory order was passed in proceedings under Section 145 of the old Code before coining into force of the new Code and a revision petition was directed after the commencement of the new Code and the objection raised by the opposite party was that the revision petition was not maintainable being directed against an interlocutory order in view of provisions of Section 397 (2) of the new Code and it was observed: