1 CRA-243-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 243 OF 2010 Mr. Jamal Ahmed Mohd. Nasib Choudhary ... Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra (at the instance of Deonar Police Station, Deonar, Mumbai-43). ... Respondent Mr. P.B.Kakade, i/b. Mr. B.R.Jadhav, Advocate, for the applicant. Mrs. V.R.Bhosale, APP, for the respondent State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 22nd July, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard. The learned Counsel for the revision-applicant/accused points out that after the conclusion of the prosecution evidence and arguments by the parties, the Additional Public Prosecutor tendered the confessional statement of the accused which was allegedly recorded by the Magistrate during investigation of the case. Without calling the concerned Magistrate to give evidence about it, the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sewree, admitted that confessional statement in the evidence and exhibited the document. That order admitting the confessional statement in evidence is sought to be challenged in the present Revision Application. Such order passed during proceeding of the trial, which 2 CRA-243-10.sxw does not put an end to the matter and does not reach finality, is interlocutory order and therefore, in view of the powers under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. such order is not subject to revisional jurisdiction. 2. Therefore, the Revision Application stands rejected as not tenable. However, the accused/applicant shall have the right to raise this question in case the Judgment goes against him. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)