JUDGMENT : P.C. Misra, J. - This is a revision against the order dated 8-10-1085 passed by the Sessions Judge, Cuttack, in Criminal Revision No. 130 of 1985 setting aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kujanga, in G.R. Case No. 237/85. 2. The relevant facts leading to this revision may be shortly stated as follows : Petitioner Nisakar Rout as the informant alleged that on 18-7-1986 Ms bollock was stolen away from his field He searched for the bullock and ultimately found it tied in the premises of opp. party No. 1, indramani Das. F. I. R. having been ladged.. by him, the police took up investigalion and seized the bullock from the premises of Indramani Das, opp. party No. 1. The said Indramani Das produced a receipt before the Investigating Officer evidencing his purchase of the bullock from Anam Rout, who is alleged fay the informant to be his adoptive father. The I. O. gave zima of the bullock to one Baman Charan Behera whereafter the informant made an application before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kujanga for possession of the bullock, the learned Magistrate, after considering the circumstances directed the Officer-in-charge Erasama P. S to bring the bullock from the zimadar Baman Charan Behera and give the same to the informant Nisakar Rout within a time specified in the said order. Opp. party No. 1 from whose possession the bullock was seized carried up the matter to the Court of Sessions Judge, Cuttack, in Criminal Revision No 130/85 alleging that the aforesaid order passed by this Judicial Magistrate directing possession of the/bullock to be given to the informant is thoroughly misconceived and claimed that the bullock should have been given to him as he is the real owner of the bullock in question. The learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order found that the present opp. party No. 1 has got a prima facie case in support of his clairn. However, the claim of Nisaker is doubtful. He therefore, directed that if the trial Court feels that the zimadar Banian Charan. Behera cannot take proper care of the bullock, then it is desirable to give the bullock in the zima of accused indramani Das, opp. party No. 1 against proper security. 3. However, the claim of Nisaker is doubtful. He therefore, directed that if the trial Court feels that the zimadar Banian Charan. Behera cannot take proper care of the bullock, then it is desirable to give the bullock in the zima of accused indramani Das, opp. party No. 1 against proper security. 3. The petitioner In this revision has urged that the revisional Court has gone wrong in entering into the controversial questions of fact which is beyond the jurisdiction of the revisional Court and has relied upon irrelevant facts and circumstances and has acted in a manner as if it was a civil Court deciding a question of ownership of the bullock in question. The learned Magistrate evidently exercised his jurisdiction u/s 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in directing that the informant shall be in custody of the bullock. Under this section the Magistrate or the Revisional Court has no jurisdiction to investigate and decide the question of title and ownership of the rival claimant to the seized property. The said summary power to order custody or possession of the property under the said section is an Interim order pending conclusion of the enquiry or trial. 4. The learned Magistrate took into consideration the receipt seized from the possession of the present opp. party No, 1 by' the I. O. showing that he had purchased the bullock from the father of the informant on payment of Rs. 1400/- and also the receipt produced by the informant in Court evidencing the allegation of the informant that he had purchased the bullock on 20-1-1985 from Jairam Das of village Bhajana for a consideration of Rs. 1400/-. He also took Into consideration the fact that there has been some dispute between the informant and his father Anam Rout from whom the accused is alleged to have purchased the bullock Ultimately he found that the interim custody of the bullock should be given to the informant (petitioner) till the conclusion of the trial The learned Sessions Judge set aside the said order mainly on the ground that the claim of Nisakar Rout that he is the adoptive son of Anam Rout cannot be believed at that stage in the absence of any evidence on the point. He took into consideration the statements u/s 161, Cr. He took into consideration the statements u/s 161, Cr. P. C. of the informant, Anam Rout and some others and concluded that there is prima facie case in favour of the accused Indramani Das as to the ownership of the bultock in question. He did not place any reliance on the receipt produced by the informant and observed that even if the said receipt is taken to be genuine, the identity of the bullock purchased thereunder is questionable. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petition vehemently urged that the order of the Magistrate deciding interim custody of the bullock . was an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 372(2). of the Code of Criminal Procedure and hence the came cannot be revised. He further urged that the revision Court should' not disturb the conclusion reached by the Magistrate in exercise of his revisions jurisdiction unless It is found that something was basically wrong in the order of the Magistrate; 6. Sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the powers of revision conferred by Sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. An interlocutory order is one which is passed at some intermediate stage of a proceeding generally to advance the cause of justice for final determination of the rights between the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the opp parties has urged that any order which substantially affects the rights of the parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar a revision within the meaning of Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.' It is well-settled in law (vide Smt. Parmeshwari Devi Vs. The State and Another, and Amar Nath and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, ) that an interlocutory order though not conclusive of the main dispute may be conclusive to the subordinate matter with which it deals. It may be thus conclusive with reference to the stage at which it is made The views of different High Courts as to whether an order u/s 451, Cr .P. C, is interlocutory are conflicting. But in the facts and circumstances of this case I do not think that the order passed by the Magistrate in giving interlocutory custody of the bollock to the informant was an interlocutory order. But in the facts and circumstances of this case I do not think that the order passed by the Magistrate in giving interlocutory custody of the bollock to the informant was an interlocutory order. As has been held by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in a case reported in Smt. Parmeshwari Devi Vs. The State and Another, an "interlocutory order", cannot necessarily be converse of the words "final order". The order of interim custody passed by the Magistrate substantially affects the rights of the accused and was conclusive during that stage of the trial. On this back ground I am unable to accept the contention of the petitioner in this revision that the revision before the Sessions Judge was barred u/s 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. Even though the revision is, as found by me to be tenable, the revisional Court should be very slow to interfere with the order. It should not ordinarily revise an order under this section unless there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. The aforesaid guidelines for exercise of jurisdiction by the revisional Courts have been clearly discussed and elucidated in a decision repotted in Amar Chand Agarwalla Vs. Shanti Bose and Another, etc. followed in AIR 1979 S. C. 3( State of Orissa v. Nakula Sahu and others). Analysing the impugned order of the revisional Court in the light of the aforesaid principle it appears to me that the revisional Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in entering into the questions of fact as if it was a Court of appeal. The learned Sessions Judge relied upon an affidavit sworn by Anam Rout wherein he has stated that he has his own son and Nisakar Rout not his adopted son. The learned Court below, however, did not consider the rafanama signed by Anam Rout and the informant Nisakar Rout where some of the villagers nominated by the parties found that the informant Nisakar Rout had purchased the bullock* in question from one Jairam Das and that Anam Rout had illegally sold the said bullock to the accused when the bullock was in the field. Neither the affidavit nor the aforesaid rafanama could be utilised by the revisional Court without the person who had sworn the affidavit being offered for cross examination or the rafanama filed by the informant being properly proved. In the facts and circumstances of this case I do not find any compelling circumstance for the revisional Court to hold that there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice because of any glaring defect in the procedure followed by the Magistrate or due to a manifest error on point of law. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the revision is allowed/the impugned order is set aside and the order of the Magistrate is restored. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the G. R. case as expeditiously as possible. Final Result : Allowed