I. P. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS criminal revision has been filed by Sharda Narain, the maker of the F. LR. dated 4. 4. 84, annexure I, for the offence punishable under sections 363/364, IP. C. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the F. I. R. Sant Kumar, accused-opposite party No. 2 had kidnapped Kumari Jayanti aged 16 years, the sister of Sharda Narain applicant After the accused surrendered in the court on 1. 5. 84, Km. Jayanti was produced in the court on 10. 5. 84 by Ramesh Chandra Gupta, father of the accused and was lodged in the Nan Niketan, Etawah. Later on 17. 5. 84, on the application of Km. J ayanti she was delivered to the custody of one Ram Bali, uncle of the accused on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 5,000/ undertaking to produce Km. Jayanti as and when required by the court. On that very date, i. e. 17. 5. 84, the Investigating Officer made an application before Judicial Magistrate I, Farukhabad fur a direction to Ram Bali to produce Km. Jayanti to enable the Investigating Officer to get her medically examined during the course of investigation. The Judicial Magistrate vide his order dated 1. 6. 84, annexure 2, allowed the said application and directed Ram Bali to produce the girl in the court on 11/6/1984 so that her medical examination could be got done. Sant Kumar accused filled Criminal Revision No. 142 of 1984, Sant Kumar v. State of U. P. in the Court of Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad against the said order dated 1. 6. 84. The learned Sessions Judge Shri D. N. Shukla vide order dated 15/9/1984 annexure 3, allowed the revision application and set aside the order dated 1/6/1984 with the result that Ram Bali was no longer required to produce Km. Jayanti in the court for medical examination. ( 3 ) SHARDA Narain, feeling aggrieved against the said order dated 15. 9. 84 has preferred this revision. The grounds taken in this revision are I-that the order of the Judicial Magistrate dated 1. 6. 84 requiring Ram Bali to produce Km. Jayanti in the court to enable the 1. 0. to get her medically examined during the course of investigation was an interlocutory order and under section 397 (2) Cr. 9. 84 has preferred this revision. The grounds taken in this revision are I-that the order of the Judicial Magistrate dated 1. 6. 84 requiring Ram Bali to produce Km. Jayanti in the court to enable the 1. 0. to get her medically examined during the course of investigation was an interlocutory order and under section 397 (2) Cr. P. C. a revision against that order was not maintainable; (2) that the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge amounted to interference with the investigation inasmuch as it had the effect of hampering the investigation. ( 4 ) THE above order of the learned Magistrate, in my view, was nothing but an interlocutory order inasmuch as the said order did not affect the rights of the parties or prejudiced anyone. The learned Sessions Judge, it appears, was also conscious of this fact yet he disposed of this legal point with the following observations: A photostat copy of the medical report of a lady dated 16/8/1984 by the Chief Medical Officer, Farrukhabad, is before me and the record of the lower Court shows that the original has been directed to be brought on record. It cannot be said that no revision lies as the order was interlocutory. If that submission is accepted the courts will be at liberty to direct medical examination times without number which would be nothing but impropriety and hence the order shall be set aside. ( 5 ) THE reasons advanced by the learned Sessions Judge not to treat the order in question as an interlocutory order are not justified. The above reasoning would not change the nature of the order in question. The criteria to find out as to whether an order is interlocutory or not has been spelt out by me above and that is the settled view. I am, therefore, of the view that the revision before the Sessions Judge was not maintainable and for this reason alone the order passed by him is to be set aside. ( 6 ) PARA 11 of the counter affidavit filed by Sant Kumar O. P. 2, indicates that when he had filed revision before the Sessions Judge then Km. Jayanti had moved an application in the district Hospital, Fatehgarh for her medical examination and it was in pursuance thereof that the Chief Medical Officer had prepared certificate regarding the age of Km. Jayanti had moved an application in the district Hospital, Fatehgarh for her medical examination and it was in pursuance thereof that the Chief Medical Officer had prepared certificate regarding the age of Km. Jayanti annexure C. A. 3. It is further vouched in paras 11 and 12 thereof that although the Chief Medical Officer had prepared the certificate yet he did not issue the same and it was only when an application was ,moved by Km. Jayanti before Judicial Magistrate r, Farrukhabad that an order was passed by the court on 14. 8. 84 directing the C. M. O. , Farrukhabad to issue the certificate in question to Km. Jayanti and that is why the said certificate bears the date 16. 8. 84 when it was issued and a photostat copy of the same was brought on record of the Court of Judicial Magistrate I, Farrukhabad. The impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 15. 9. 84 also indicates that on the record of the lower court (J. M. 1) an order had been passed to bring the original certificate also on record. ( 7 ) IN the present revision, the learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that in the first place also it is not certain that Km. Jayanti herself had appeared before the C. M. O. and the medical certificate in. question, giving the age of the girl as 20 years really relates to Km. Jayanti. Apprehension has been expressed that some other girl might have been produced before the C. M. O. for medical examination. Secondly, it is argued that the 1. 0. is under statutory obligation to investigate the crime and to investigate things to his own satisfaction and he must be sure that the said certificate does really relate to Km. Jayanti. He cannot be required to treat the certificate brought on record as a genuine certificate concerning Km. Jayanti herself. 4he certificate of the C. M. O. does bear thumb impression of one Smt. Jayanti but there is no counter signature of anyone to show as to who had identified Km. Jayanti before him. It is argued that it is a statutory right of the Investigation Officer to get Km. Jayanti herself. 4he certificate of the C. M. O. does bear thumb impression of one Smt. Jayanti but there is no counter signature of anyone to show as to who had identified Km. Jayanti before him. It is argued that it is a statutory right of the Investigation Officer to get Km. Jayanti medically examined, through his own agency so that there could be no dispute about her identity and that is necessary to avoid any confusion or controversy on the point during the trial of the case, if it takes place. I see much force in this argument and hold that Km. Jayanti should be produced before the Judicial Magistrate in Farrukhabad by Ram Bali to enable the Investigating Officer to get her medically examined. ( 8 ) THE revision is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 15. 9. 84 is set aside and that of Judicial Magistrate I, Farrukhabad, dated 1/6/1984 is restored. Revision allowed. .