Judgment :- 1. The fight between two factions of the Jacobite Christians has given rise to this proceedings. To start with the dispute related to their rights over Mar Ougen Church, Maravanthuruth and cemetry attached to it. Consequent on that dispute, proceedings u/S. 145 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Palai in M.C. No.6/78. Preliminary order u/S. 145 (1) was issued on 23-3-1978. On the same day the learned Magistrate initiated proceedings u/S. 146(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By that order the entire Church and all its properties including the cemetry were placed under the custody of the Village Officer, Kulasekhararnangalam as receiver. The rival parties thereupon approached the civil court by filing suits. Those suits are still pending. When the Sub Divisional Magistrate proceeded with the trial of M.C. 6/78, "A" party to the proceedings approached this court by filing Crl. M.C. 509/81. By order dated 26-9-1981 this court directed the Magistrate not to proceed with M.C. 6/78 till the question in dispute is decided by a competent civil court. Since the civil court did not adjudicate on the rights of the parties over the disputed property and the Church till date, M.C. 6/78 is still pending. 2. By order dated 28-5-1981, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate ordered that B party 2 may conduct the burial ceremony in the cemetry of the Church under dispute till further orders or till the case is finally disposed of whichever is earlier. While the matters stood like that, B party 2 moved a petition before the Sub Divisional Magistrate for permission to allow the Catholicos of the East and not less than 3 Bishops of their group to enter the cemetery and to take part in the funeral ceremony that has to take place on the death of Rev. Fr. Joseph Cor Episcopa B party 1. They also prayed for sanction to erect a tomb for him. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate by order dated 11-4-1988 declined the sanction for the presence of Bishops or higher religious dignitaries in the cemetery during the funeral ceremony. The request for erection of the tomb was allowed subject to the following conditions: (1) The spot in the cemetery for erection of tomb shall be determined with the concurrence of both the parties. (2) A joint declaration from the petitioner and his brother Mr. The request for erection of the tomb was allowed subject to the following conditions: (1) The spot in the cemetery for erection of tomb shall be determined with the concurrence of both the parties. (2) A joint declaration from the petitioner and his brother Mr. Thomas stating that the tomb is being erected for their father's burial only and not as a family tomb: (3) Construction of the tomb should be supervised by B party and his elder brother and no one else. (4) Necessary permission from the Village Officer, Kulasekharamangalam should have to be obtained as is done in normal circumstances. Whole affairs also should be supervised by the Village Officer ensuring that there is no breach of peace. (5) A minute to minute account of the ceremony should be sent to this court. (6) No one should enter into the Church building during that period. Aggrieved by this order declining sanction for the entry of higher religious dignitaries into the cemetery, B party No. 2 preferred criminal revision petition 23 of 1988 before the Sessions Court, Kottayam. The learned Sessions Judge directed the receiver to permit H. E. Basalios Mar Poulose and bis Bishops to conduct the funeral ceremonies and to take necessary steps to see that law and order is maintained during the ceremony. 'A' party No.land another has come up challenging the said direction given by the learned Sessions Judge. 3. Sri. T. Devassia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners raised 3 points for consideration. They are: (1) The order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate was an interlocutory one and hence was not revisable by the Sessions Court in view of the prohibition contained in S.397 (2) of the Code; (2) The learned Sessions Judge was clearly in error in varying the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate because it had no infirmity contemplated by S.397(1) of the Code. (3) In view of the direction given by this court in Crl. M. C. 509/81 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was not justified in passing any order in M. C. 6/78. I shall proceed to deal with these points in detail, 4. It is well settled that interlocutory orders are not open to revision because of the prohibition contained in S.397 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The question to be considered is whether the order dated 11-4-1988 is an interlocutory order or not. I shall proceed to deal with these points in detail, 4. It is well settled that interlocutory orders are not open to revision because of the prohibition contained in S.397 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The question to be considered is whether the order dated 11-4-1988 is an interlocutory order or not. It is common case that the Church and its properties including the cemetery are under the control of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Palai. The Village Officer Kulasekharamangalam is holding the properties as receiver appointed by that court. By order dated 28-5-1981, B party 2 alone was given the right to conduct burial ceremonies in the cemetery of the Church. B party (1) Rev. Fr. Joseph Cor Episcopa is in the last days of his life. He is more than 97 years of age. He is seriously ill and is undergoing treatment in hospital. On bis death a funeral ceremony befitting to his religious status has to be conducted. For the said purpose B party approached the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate. Two. prayers were made before court. One was to erect a tomb for Rev. Fr. Joseph Cor Episcopa. The other was to permit the high priests to perform the funeral ceremonies. Members of the A party have no objection in having a tomb erected in honour of Cor Episcopa. Hut they objected to the entry of the high priest and the Bishops into the cemetery for conducting the ceremonies. Consequently, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate passed the order sanctioning the construction of the tomb; but rejected the prayer to allow the high priest and the Bishops to enter the cemetery for conducting the funeral ceremonies. Can this order be considered as an interlocutory one or is it an order finally disposing of the claim put forward by the B party and hence beyond the purview of the prohibition contained in S.397 (2) of the Code? 5. The term interlocutory order used in the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be given a very liberal construction in order to ensure complete fairness in the trial. The bar contained in S.397 (2) cannot operate to result in abuse of process of court or prevent to secure the ends of justice. Is there any test to find whether a particular order is interlocutory or not? The bar contained in S.397 (2) cannot operate to result in abuse of process of court or prevent to secure the ends of justice. Is there any test to find whether a particular order is interlocutory or not? An order though not conclusive of the main dispute between the parties, may be conclusive as to the subordinate matter with which it deals. Such an order when finally disposes of the matter in dispute, according to me, should not be treated as a purely interlocutory order. Such an order cannot be treated as a final order because it does not finally adjudicate on the main dispute between the parties. But such orders would be few and far between. In Madhu Limaye's case (AIR. 1978 SC. 47) Their Lordships took the view that for finding out the teal meaning of the expression "Interlocutory order" occurring in S.397 (2) of the Code of Crl. Procedure it would be just and proper to apply the test under S.115 of the Civil Procedure Code in finding "the case decided". The effect of such an order is not to dispose finally of the rights of parties. Bat it no doubt decides an important issue in the case and leave the suit alive for further trial. In Baldevdas v. Filmistan Distributors (India) Pvt. Ltd. (AIR. 1970 SC. 406) it has been held "A case may be said to be decided, if the court adjudicates for the purposes of the suit some right or obligation of the parties in controversy". The legal position that the test to be applied for finding the nature or the order is similar for both civil and criminal cases was reiterated in Shuklas case (AIR. 1980 SC. 962). Their Lordships observed: "This court as also the federal court have clearly pointed cut that so far as the tests to be applied to determine whether an order is final or interlocutory, apply as much to a civil case as to a criminal case."] 6. In the instant case the B party wanted the funeral ceremony of B party 1 conducted in a manner befitting with the position he holds in the religious hierarchy. He is Cor Episcopa. It is conceded before me that the post of Cor Episcopa is a highly honoured position in the religious order. In the instant case the B party wanted the funeral ceremony of B party 1 conducted in a manner befitting with the position he holds in the religious hierarchy. He is Cor Episcopa. It is conceded before me that the post of Cor Episcopa is a highly honoured position in the religious order. For extending a solemn funeral ceremony to such a high religious dignitary under auspicious of the high priest and the Bishops, B party 2 approached the court. That application has been finally disposed of by order dated 11-4-1988. The prayer in that petition and its disposal may not have any repercussion on the matters in dispute in M. C. 6/78. But since the property is in the custody of the court, order should be obtained for holding the funeral ceremonies with the junction of the high priest. The decision on that petition can certainly be considered as "a case decided" as has been observed by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in V. C. Shukla's case. The order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate disposed of the matter in controversy between the parties namely whether the Cor Episcopa should have his funeral ceremonies conducted by the high priest or not. in that sense the order tell within the category of intermediate orders which are few and far between. This order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate substantially affects the rights of the parties. The right of Cor Episcopa to have funeral ceremonies conducted in accordance with his religious status has been decided once for all. Such an order, according to me, can never be considered as an interlocutory one. The fact that the controversy between the parties which give rise to initiation of proceedings in M. C. 6/78 remains alive is of no consequence. That controversy has not been finally disposed of by this order either. But the case that was mooted, namely the manner of conducting the funeral ceremony has been finally decided. In this view, the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate was a'case decided' and consequently a final order. In this view the said order was open to revision and the bar u/S. 397(2) has no applicability Therefore I find no substance in the first point raised by the learned counsel of the petitioners. 7. In this view, the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate was a'case decided' and consequently a final order. In this view the said order was open to revision and the bar u/S. 397(2) has no applicability Therefore I find no substance in the first point raised by the learned counsel of the petitioners. 7. The second ground of attack levelled against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is that the learned Sessions Judge did not find any error, illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate. It is argued that the revisional court did not point out any irregularity in the proceedings held by the Sub Divisional Magistrate either. In such a situation it is contended that the court below was clearly in error in modifying the order passed by the learned Magistrate. I am not impressed with these arguments. Under S.397 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court or the Sessions judge can go into the propriety of the finding entered by the inferior criminal court. While examining the propriety of the finding, the court can examine whether the order passed by the inferior court was in conformity with established standards of proper behaviour or manners. The death of Cor Episcopa is expected to take place in the immediate future. On such death, whether be was to be given a burial according to his religious status was the matter in issue before court. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate held that the funeral ceremony is to be conducted by B party 2 only. No separate ceremony was allowed. The propriety of that order could be looked into by the learned Sessions Judge. Dealing with that propriety the court below observed: "Burial has to take place in a befitting manner depending on the status of a person, specially of one in the status of Cor Episcopa-the precedent bring that the funeral rites and ceremonies are conducted by those in higher ranks than the Cor Episcopa." This observation can certainly be stated as one made after considering the propriety of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Accordingly, I find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Point No. 2 is thus found against the petitioners. 8. Lastly it was contended that in view of this court's direction in Crl. Accordingly, I find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Point No. 2 is thus found against the petitioners. 8. Lastly it was contended that in view of this court's direction in Crl. M. C. 509/81 the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate should not have entertained the petition put in by B party 2. Nor should the learned Magistrate have passed the order dated 11-4-1988. While disposing of Crl. M. C. 509/81 this court observed: "In this case the Magistrate exercised the powers under S.146(1) by attaching the property since he considered the case to be one of emergency. Once he does this,he cannot thereafter proceed to consider the question of possession. He is to keep the property in attachment until a competent court determines the rights of the parties thereto. In this case two suits are pending in relation to the same subject matter. Having attached the property, the Magistrate has to await the decision of the civil court. Further proceedings by him in the case is not warranted by the section, I therefore allow this petition and direct the Magistrate not to proceed with M. C. No. 6 of 1978 on bis file till the question in dispute is decided by a competent Civil Court." This observation was made taking note of the controversy between the parties namely the dispute regarding the possession over the Church and the properties attached to it including the cemetery. The situation that bad given rise to the present proceedings was never in the contemplation of this court. The directions given by this court can only be taken to mean that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate should not deal with the disputed question of possession over the properly until a competent civil court decides the issue. Viewed in this manner, I can't agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Sub Divisional Magistrate was prevented from disposing of the petition which gave rise to the present proceedings. Accordingly, I bold that the order in Crl. M. C. 509/81 cannot operate as a bar against the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. 9. As observed by the learned Sessions Judge, on the death of Cor Episcopa burial has to take place in a befitting manner depending on bis status. Funeral rights and ceremonies are to be conducted by those in the higher ranks. M. C. 509/81 cannot operate as a bar against the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. 9. As observed by the learned Sessions Judge, on the death of Cor Episcopa burial has to take place in a befitting manner depending on bis status. Funeral rights and ceremonies are to be conducted by those in the higher ranks. The high priest and the Bishops are to be allowed to bold the ceremony. For the purpose of holding the ceremony they are expected to be there at the cemetery only for a very short period. Their entry into the cemetery for the said purpose should be allowed. To secure the ends of justice, this court has to exercise its inherent jurisdiction u/S. 482 of the Code of Crl. Procedure even if it is seen that the earlier order in M.C. 509/81 has the effect as stated by the petitioner. On bearing counsel on both sides and on an anxious consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that the order passed by the Sessions Judge is one aimed to secure the ends of justice. When it is seen that the impugned order has gone to secure the ends of justice, this court is not to interfere with it on hyper technicalities, I find no ground to upset the conclusions arrived at by the Sessions Judge. Point No. 3 is thus found against the petitioners. In view of what has been stated above, this revision petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed.