The Magistrate after recording the preliminary evidence does not found it a case of summoning, then respondent-accused would not have faced the trial at all, but if the Magistrate choses to summon the accused then in that case the accused would have face the trial and as such decides a serious question as to the right of the accused to be put on trial and to my mind could not have held to be an interlocutory order. The interlocutory order has been defined in the case of Amar Nath Vs. State of Haryana, 1977 SCC (Crl.) 2185, wherein it was held that the orders which affect or adjudicate the rights of the accused or a particular aspect of the trial cannot be said to be interlocutory order so as to be outside the purview of the revisional jurisdiction. Amar Nath's case (supra) and the case of V.C. Shukla Vs. State through CBI, 1980 SCC (Crl.) 695 have been followed in the case of Rajendra Kumar sitaram Pande Vs. Uttam, 1999(1) RCR (Crl.) 800, wherein it has been concluded that the order issuing summons to the accused must be held to be intermediate or quasi final and, therefore, the revision jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. can be exercised against the same.
