ORDER Oza, J.- 1. This revision petition has been filed by State against an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Jhabua releasing the non-applicants on bail on 17-5-1979. Aggrived by the same order the complainant has also filed Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 26-2-1979. 2. The main grievance urged in these two petitions is that the Chief Judicial Magistrate could not have entertained the application under section 439 for grant of bail in a case where the accused is charged with an offence under section 302 IPC. It was also brought to my notice that in fact the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate granted ball on the day on which the application was filed. But the order does show that the case diary was perused. 3. The Sessions Judge Jhabua was directed by this Court to report if there was any authorization made in favour of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, authorizing him to entertain such urgent applications, either by the High Court under section 9 or by the Sessions Judge under section 10 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure. The Sessions Judge with his report has sent an order passed by the Sessions Judge Jhabua dated 16th June 1975 wherein he has ordered: "During my absence on leave or otherwise from the Head Quarters, I hereby authorise the Additional Sessions Judge and in the absence of both the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhabua to dispose of urgent Criminal Cases and applications for bail etc. as per Provisions of section 10 (3) of the Criminal P. C. (1973)." The Sessions Judge also was called upon to report as to whether on that date, i. e, 17-5-1979, any Additional Sessions Judge in the Division was on duty or not; and the Sessions Judge in his report has stated that on 17th May 1979 Shri A. K. Khare, Additional Sessions Judge was on duty in the Sessions division posted at Alirajpur. He has also mentioned that at the head quarters in Jhabua no Additional Sessions Judge was no duty. 4. Section 9 sub-section (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides: "9. He has also mentioned that at the head quarters in Jhabua no Additional Sessions Judge was no duty. 4. Section 9 sub-section (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides: "9. (5) Where the office of the Sessions Judge is vacant, the High Court may make arrangements for the disposal of any urgent application which is, or may be, made or pending before such Court of Session by an Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge or, if there be no Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge, by a Chief Judical Magistrate in the Sessions division and every such Judge or: Magistrate shall have jurisdiction to deal with any such applications," This provision has been made for making arrangement for disposal of urgent applications when there is no Sessions Judge, Additional Sessions Judge or Assistant Sessions Judge in the Sessions division; and in that event the High Court is authorized to make arrangement and in absence of Additional Sessions Judge or Assistant Sessions Judge in the Division even a C. J. Magistrate could be authorized to entertain any urgent application which otherwise the Sessions Judge is authorized to dispose of. Section 10 sub-section (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the Sessions Judge may also by a suitable order authorize Additional Sessions Judge, Assistant Sessions Judge or the Chief Judicial Magistrate to deal with urgent applications in absence of the Sessions Judge, 10. (3) The Sessions Judge may also make provision for the disposal of any urgent application, in the event of his absence or inability to act, by an Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge, or, if there be no Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and every such Judge or Magistrate shall be deemed to have jurisdiction to deal with any such application." Apparently, sub-section (5) of section 9 clearly provides that a Chief Judicial Magistrate can only deal with urgent applications which otherwise could be disposed of by a Sessions Judge, only if the Additional Sessions Judge or Assistant Sessions Judge in the division is not present. It is therefore clear that even the High Court can authorize a Chief Judicial Magistrate to hear urgent applications only in the event of the absence of Sessions Judge, Additional Sessions Judge or Assistant Sessions Judge from the Sessions division as a whole. 5. It is therefore clear that even the High Court can authorize a Chief Judicial Magistrate to hear urgent applications only in the event of the absence of Sessions Judge, Additional Sessions Judge or Assistant Sessions Judge from the Sessions division as a whole. 5. Sub-section (3) of section 10 of the Code apparently does not talk of "sessions division"; and it was therefore contended that as there was no Additional Sessions Judge or Assistant Sessions Judge available at Jhabua itself, the Chief Judicial Magistrate had the authority under orders of the Sessions Judge quoted above to hear and dispose of urgent applications Section 10 follows section 9 and it appears that section 9 lays down the scheme of Sessions division and appointment of Judges for that division; and if in Sub-section (5) of section 9 in that context the Legislature felt that in absence of any Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge in the division the Chief Judicial Magistrate may be authorised to dispose of urgent applications there is no reason why under sub-section (3) of section 10 the Chief Judicial Magistrate could not be authorized even if an Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge is not available at one place only. It was further contended that section 10 or section 9 does not talk of any place. Section 9 only talks of Sessions division and section 10 does not say anything. It is also significant that the High Court under section 9 (5) could authorize a Chief Judicial Magistrate only if no Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge is available in the whole division. A Sessions Judge is empowered to authorize under section 10(3) a Chief Judicial Magistrate even if the Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge was available in the division but was not available at the place. 6. This does not appear to be logical. Apparently, as section 10 follows section 9, when it is said in sub-section (3) of section 10 that the Sessions Judge may authorize by an order the Chief Judicial Magistrate to hear urgent applications in absence of Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge, what is meant is the absence in the sessions division and not at a particular place. The order the Sessions Judge has passed in this case, which is quoted above, also does not talk of any place. The order the Sessions Judge has passed in this case, which is quoted above, also does not talk of any place. It appears that he has passed that order in terms of sub-section (3) of section 10 of the Code. Therefore, as it is not now disputed that in the Sessions division an Additional Sessions Judge was available posted at Alirajpur, and this application for bail was heard and disposed of by the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jhabua. in view of what has been discussed above, apparently, even under the orders passed by the Sessions Judge quoted above, under section 10(3) as the Additional Sessions Judge was available in the, division this bail application could not have been entertained by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. 7. Learned counsel for the non-applicants has raised a preliminary objection that as the order granting bail is an order falling within the ambit of -interlocutory order' as provided in section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure a revision petition will not be competent and therefore this revision petition could not be entertained. Learned counsel appearing for State contended that if technically a revision petition is not competent he prays that this may be considered either under section 439 (2) or section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel for the non-applicants also contended that these non applicants have been released on bail and have been on bail for all this period and ordinarily bail could not be cancelled unless something to show that they have misused the liberty granted to them is established, Learned counsel also referred to certain decisions on that count. 8. Apparently, the question before us is not of cancellation of bail on the ground that the non applicants have misused the liberty granted to them. The question urged before me in this case is as to whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate Jhabua under orders of the Sessions Judge under section 10(3) of the Code could grant an application under section 439 of the Code, which otherwise could only be entertained by the Sessions Judge, an Additional Sessions Judge was available in the Sessions division although posted at a different place in the Sessions division. And in that context the consideration about the circumstances as to whether the non-applicants have misused the liberty or not is not at all necessary for this Court to go into. 9. And in that context the consideration about the circumstances as to whether the non-applicants have misused the liberty or not is not at all necessary for this Court to go into. 9. It was also contended that one of the two non-applicants is of tender age and may be entitled to bail as a matter of right. Learned counsel for non-applicants also contended that as sufficient time has elapsed, even otherwise the non-applicants may be entitled to bail. These questions are not before me at present. They can always be considered and decided if raised in appropriate proceedings before a competent Court. 10. It is no doubt true that granting of bail is an interlocutory order and a revision petition under section 397 of the Code could not be entertained as sub-section (2) of that section provides that no revision petition will lie under that provision against an interlocutory order. It Is also clear that an order granting bail is an interlocutory order but on that technical ground it could not be contended that this Court is powerless when apparently the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate is absolutely without jurisdiction. This Court could cancel the bail on any of the grounds, even under section 439 (2) of the Code or also in exercise of inherent powers. 11. I therefore feel that the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot be allowed to stand. The petition is therefore allowed and the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Jhabua dated 17th May 1979 granting bail to the two non-applicants is hereby set aside.