https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103166 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. en-us Mon, 21 Dec 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Feb 2012 12:00:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103166 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. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 21 Dec 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103166