Maintainability of second revision and stay of criminal proceedings rejected after revisional finality and interlocutory-order bar.

A petition under Article 227 to quash magistrate and revisional orders and to stay criminal proceedings was considered not maintainable once the revision had already been rejected. A second revision was treated as barred under the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the revisional order had attained finality. The refusal to stay further proceedings was treated as an interlocutory order, so no revision lay against it. The earlier direction to the Magistrate to proceed with the case supported continuation of the trial. Section 391(6) of the Companies Act was found inapplicable on the facts, and criminal proceedings were said ordinarily to deserve priority and not to be stayed as a matter of course.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petition under Article 227 could be entertained to quash the orders of the Magistrate and the revisional court and to stay the criminal proceedings, and whether the proceedings deserved to be stayed under section 391(6) of the Companies Act.

Analysis: Once the revision application had been rejected, a second revision was held to be not maintainable under section 399(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the order of the revisional court attained finality. The refusal to stay further proceedings was treated as an interlocutory order, against which no revision lay in view of section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court further held that the earlier direction to the Magistrate to proceed with the case required continuation of the trial. On the merits, the reliance on section 391(6) of the Companies Act was found inapplicable on the facts, and the Court reiterated that criminal proceedings ordinarily deserve preference and are not to be stayed as a matter of course.

Conclusion: The petition was not maintainable and the request to stay the criminal proceedings was rejected.

---