THAKUR DAS BHATIA Vs. M P MEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed in this court against the order dated May 4. 1985, of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Rajasthan Jaipur. Under the aforesaid order, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has refused to adjourn the case under the provisions of section 309 Cr. P. C. On the last date when the matter came up for orders it was brought to the notice of the learned counsel for the petitioners that an order under section 309 Cr. P. C. is an interlocutory order and as such in view of the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 397 Cr. P. C. a revision petition will not lie against the said order. In all fairness to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he agreed that the order made under section 309 Cr. P. C. is an interlocutory order and as such the revision petition will not lie under section 397 (2) Cr. P. C. If the court, after taking cognizance of the offence or commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable to postpone the commencement of or adjourn any inquiry or trial it may, from time to time, for reasons to be recorded postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it considers reasonable. Therefore, an order under section 309 (2) Cr. P. C. is an interlocutory order and revision petition will not lie against it. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the revision petition may be treated an application under section 482 Cr. P. C.

(2.) THE question arises whether this court in exercise of its powers under section 482 Cr. P. C. can interfere in the order of the learned Magistrate made under section 309 (2) Cr. P. C. refusing to adjourn the case?