Revisional jurisdiction barred for interlocutory orders despite pending old-Code proceedings; post-Code revision was held not maintainable.

A revision petition challenging an interlocutory order framing charge was held not maintainable because section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 bars revision against interlocutory orders. Although the underlying proceeding had commenced under the old Code and continued by virtue of section 484(2)(a), the revision itself was filed only after the new Code came into force. The Court held that revisional jurisdiction is a supervisory power and does not create a vested right to seek revision as of right. The statutory bar therefore applied, and the petition could not be treated as a continuation of the trial to escape section 397(2).

---

---

Issues: Whether a revision petition filed against an interlocutory order framing charge after the coming into force of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable, having regard to section 397(2) and the saving provision in section 484(2)(a).

Analysis: The proceeding was pending when the new Code commenced, so the trial stage itself continued under the old Code by virtue of section 484(2)(a). However, the revision petition was filed only after the new Code came into force, and section 397(2) expressly bars revision against interlocutory orders. The revisional jurisdiction is a supervisory power of the Court and does not confer a vested right on a party to invoke revision as of right. A revision application cannot, therefore, be treated as a continuation of the original trial for the purpose of avoiding the statutory bar.

Conclusion: The revision petition was not maintainable and was barred by section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---