https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303040 A criminal revision does not lie against a purely interlocutory order directing deposit of compensation while suspending sentence, because revisional jurisdiction is barred by Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The challenged order was made in the course of the appeal and did not warrant revision. The revision petition was therefore held not maintainable and dismissed, while the party was left to seek appropriate relief under the Court's inherent jurisdiction where available. en-us Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Jun 2022 15:17:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303040 A criminal revision does not lie against a purely interlocutory order directing deposit of compensation while suspending sentence, because revisional jurisdiction is barred by Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The challenged order was made in the course of the appeal and did not warrant revision. The revision petition was therefore held not maintainable and dismissed, while the party was left to seek appropriate relief under the Court's inherent jurisdiction where available. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303040