Y.R. Meena, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned P.R and perused the contents of the petition. The petition is directed against the order of learned Sessions Judge dated 16.2.93, whereby the petition of the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground that no revision petition lies against an interim order of taking cognizance by the trial court.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Naqvi submitted that the earlier decision in the case of Kunj Behari v. State has been over-ruled by a decision of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jarnail Singh v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1992(1) WLC 147. Wherein, alter detailed discussion the view has been taken that : "An order framing charge is an order of moment; it deprives a liberty of a citizen and puts him to jeopardy of a trial. Such an order finally rejects the plea of the accused that he is entitled to a discharge or that he is not liable to be tried. Such an order concludes the enquiry and the pre-trial proceedings against the accused. The order framing charge takes away a very valuable right of the accused. Hence, in our considered opinion, an order framing charge is not an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397(2) Criminal Procedure Code. and such an order is amenable to the supervisory jurisdiction of the court of Sessions and the High Court under Section 397(1) Criminal Procedure Code."
(3.) Though the judgment in the case of Jarnail Singh (supra), on which the counsel for petitioner has placed reliance, is pertaining to charge but even in the case of cognizance the revisions are being entertained not only by the Sessions courts, but even by the High Court, in the interest of justice.;