- (1.) The petitioner has preferred this revision under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order dated April 30, 2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Durgapur, in Criminal Motion no.19 of 2015 affirming the order dated February 16, 2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Durgapur, in CR 66 of 2010, by which learned Magistrate of the court below issued warrant of arrest against the petitioner.
(2.) It appears from record that the opposite party no.2 filed the complaint case being CR 66 of 2010 before the court of learned Magistrate against the petitioner on the allegation of committing offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. By judgment and order dated September 25, 2014, learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Admittedly, the petitioner did not challenge the order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Magistrate by preferring an appeal before the court of sessions. The opposite party no.2 filed an application before the trial court for issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner for realisation of the amount of compensation. Learned Magistrate issued warrant of arrest against the petitioner on prayer of the opposite party no.2 by passing the impugned order on February 16, 2015. The said order of learned Magistrate was challenged by the petitioner by way of revision before the court of sessions by preferring the Criminal Motion no.19 of 2015 which was disposed of on April 30, 2015 by affirming the order passed by learned Magistrate on the ground that learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot interfere in the interlocutory order due to specific bar under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that learned Additional Sessions Judge is not justified under the law by holding that the order passed by learned Magistrate is interlocutory in nature. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the order passed by learned Magistrate is interlocutory in nature as the said order was passed in connection with the execution proceeding and learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly refused to interfere in the said order of learned Magistrate.;