IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.812 of 2009 RAM BADAN RAI Versus STATE OF BIHAR & MUNKI DEVI ----------- 2 12.05.2009. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The issue of maintainability of the instant criminal revision application is in question. The petitioner has moved this Cr Revision against order dated 16.4.2009, passed by Sessions judge, Begusarai in Cr Revision No. 97 of 2009, whereby he refused to quash warrant of arrest dated 23.1.2004 issued on 16.4.2009 by Presiding officer FTC II, Begusarai in Sessions Trial No. 375A/90 (arising out of Complaint case no. 27C of 1987). The learned Sessions judge rightly held that he has no power to call for and examine the records of Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No. II, Begusarai, as such, he held the revision application to be not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that issuance of warrant of arrest is not a interlocutory order and as such Revision application under section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is maintainable. He submits that in any view of the matter it would be deemed to be intermediate of quasi-final. Learned counsel in support of his contention has relied on a decision of the Apex court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande and others Vs Uttam and Another, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 134. In the aforesaid case, the Apex court was considering the issue whether issuance of summons pursuant to the magistrate finding that there is sufficient evidence to proceed against accused, under section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is an 2 interlocutory or not. The Apex court after considering the catena of decisions on this point in case of Madhu Limaye Vs State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1978 SC 47 and V.C. Shukla vs State through CBI, reported in AIR 1980 SC 962, held that it would not be appropriate to hold that order directing issuance of process is purely interlocutory and, therefore, the bar under sub-section (2) of section 397 would apply. On the other hand, it must be held to be intermediate or quasi-final and, therefore, the revisional jurisdiction under section 397 could be exercised against the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner also asserts that never earlier any warrant was issued against him and, as such, petitioner was unaware of the same, which would also be evident from the record itself. The petitioner herein has not come against issuance of summons or warrant provided under section 204 (1) (a) & (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Once cognizance has been taken and process under section 204 has been issued, thereafter if the accused does not appear, process contained in Chapter VI Cr.P.C. is resorted to. The warrant issued against the accused who is not appearing or evading arrest would be deemed to be one under section 73 Cr.P.C. or Chapter VI Cr.P.C. The issuance of warrant after stage of section 204 Cr.P.C. and more so when case has been committed to the court of sessions or other issue for trial would not come in the category of intermediate or a quasi-final order. As such, the proposition laid down in case of Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pandey (Supra) case would not be applicable in the facts of this case, as petitioner has not come against order issuing summons or warrant under section 204 Cr.P.C. Order passed under section 204 Cr.P.C. affects the right and liabilities of the parties and as such 3 Revision is maintainable. The order issuing warrant after committal or transfer of case for trial does not decide any right or liability and as such is an interlocutory order and revision is not maintainable against it. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if he is willing to surrender, then in such case, he may be given an opportunity to do so particularly when warrant has not been issued or served. In support of his submission he relies upon a decision rendered in case of Yogesh Kumar Bhargava versus State of UP, reported under section 2001 Cr L J 2835. This Court is not passing any order on the merits, as the revision application is itself not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to convert the instant revision application into one under section 482 Cr.P.C. in course of the day. Put up thereafter before appropriate bench. Shashi. (S. P. Singh, J.)