https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279557 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). en-us Fri, 20 Dec 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Mar 2019 14:40:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279557 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). Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 20 Dec 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279557