IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :: 18.01.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.956 of 2009 M.Soundararajan ... Petitioner -vs- 1.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch Team XVIII, (Previously Team XXII), Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. (Crime No.250/2008) 2.R.Palaniappan 3.C.Kanagasabapathy ... Respondents Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order dated 19.08.2009 made in Crl.M.P.No. 1580 of 2009 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore and to cancel the bail granted in Crl.M.P.No.1538 of 2008 dated 12.05.2008 by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore. For petitioner : Mr.S.Shankar For Respondents : Mr.A.Saravanan, for R1 Government Advocate (Crl.Side) : Mr.S.Ananthanarayanan For R2 & 3 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the defacto complainant in Cr.No.250 0f 2008 on the file of the first respondent and the respondents 2 and 3 are the accused. The offences are under Sections 419, 465, 468, 471 and 506 (ii) of IPC. The respondents 2 and 3 were granted bail by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, in C.M.P.No.1538 of 2008 dated 12.05.2008. Subsequently, the petitioner filed C.M.P.No.1580 of 2009 before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 437 (5) of Cr.P.C for cancellation of Bail. It was dismissed by the learned Magistrate by order dated 19.08.2009 on certain grounds. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has come forward with this Revision Case. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3. 3. At the outset, I have to state that this Revision is highly misconceived. It is the law that an order declining to cancel the bail granted earlier is not revisable as it is not a final order in terms of Section 397 of Cr.P.C. If the petitioner is aggrieved, he can very well workout his remedy challenging the impugned order in the manner known to law. I am of the considered view that filing Revision is no answer to the grievance of the petitioner. On this ground alone, I am inclined to dismiss the Revision. It is made clear that in this matter no opinion has been expressed regarding the other grounds raised. 4. In the result, the Revision is dismissed as not maintainable, however, with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies in the manner known to law. mra Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar To 1. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore 2. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore. 3. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch Team XVIII, (Previously Team XXII), Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. 4. The Public Prosecuter, High Court Madras. CRL R.C No.956 OF 2009 MRD(CO) EU 2.02.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/