TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a criminal revision lies against an interlocutory order directing deposit of compensation while suspending sentence.
Analysis: The order challenged was only an interlocutory order made in the course of the appeal, and therefore did not attract revisional jurisdiction. In view of the bar under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a revision against such an order was held to be not maintainable. The Court also noted that the petitioner could seek appropriate relief under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court.
Conclusion: The revision petition was not maintainable and was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: Revisional jurisdiction is barred under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in respect of purely interlocutory orders, leaving the party to pursue appropriate relief under Section 482 where available.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
