J. C. GOPTA, J. This revision is directed against the various orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi after 29-6-1995 and spe cially against the order dated 12-2-1996 and it has been prayed that the entire proceedings after 29-6-1995 be quashed as null and void and the applicant in revision be enlarged on bail pending trial of case crime No. 82 of 1995 under Sections 498-A and 304-B, IPC and Section 3/4, Dowry Prohibition. 2. The applicant in revision is the husband of the deceased. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant in revision, Sri D. S. Mishra contended before me that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has com mitted gross illegality in not passing any valid order remanding the appli cant in revision to jail custody and therefore, the detention of the applicant in revision is illegal and on account of that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on a number of decisions. The lower court record has also been summoned, which I have perused. 4. In order to appreciate the contentions of the applicants counsel, same relevant facts may be put in brief. On 13-4-1995 a First Information Report was lodged at Police Station Sigra, District Varanasi and on the basis of which the aforesaid case was registered, wherein the applicant in revision is the main accused. The police investigated the said case and submitted charge-sheet before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The learned Magistrate took cognizance on 29-6-1995. Copies were furnished to the accused person under Section 207, Cr, PC on 13-7-1995. Excepting the applicant in revision, other accused persons were released on bail. Since 13-7-1995 the case has not yet been committed to the Court of Session on account of the absence of one or the other accused, who are on bail the last date fixed was 10-6-1996. On every date fixed by the court, the applicant in revision has been produced before the Magistrate in custody and was sent to jail where he is confined in judicial custody. 5. On every date fixed by the court, the applicant in revision has been produced before the Magistrate in custody and was sent to jail where he is confined in judicial custody. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant in revision argued that during the committal proceedings, on no date any order remanding the accused to custody has been passed by the learned Magistrate on the order-sheet and in the absence of any such order of remand the custody of the applicant is illegal, as a consequence of which ho is entitled to be released on bail. 6. On the other hand, learned A. G. A. vehemently argued that the orders which are being challenged in this revision, were, all interlocutory orders. Therefore, revision is barred on account of the bar created by Section 397 (2), Cr PC. He further argued that proper and legal course for the applicant would have been to approach this Court filing a habeas corpus petition or moving an application for bail. 7. Sri D. S. Mishra has relied upon some observations of the Apex Court made in the case of Khatri v. State of Bihar, 1981 SCC (Cr) 228, wherein it was held the provision inhibiting detention without remand is a very healthy provision which enables the Magistrate to keep check over the police investigation and it is necessary that the Magistrates should try to enforce this requirement and where it is found to be disobeyed, come down heavily upon the police. In that case some of the accused persons were being detained in jail custody without being produced before the Judicial Magistrate subsequent to their first production and continued to remain in jail without any remand order being passed by the Judicial Magistrate. This practice was not appreciated and it was held that this was plainly contrary to law. Apex Court observed that it is difficult to understand how the State continued to detain those accused person in Jail "without any remand orders. We hope and trust that the State Govern ment will inquire as to why this irregularity was allowed to be perpetrated and will see to it that in future no such violations of the law are permitted by the administrators of the law". The facts of that case were entirely different with the facts of the case in hand. 8. We hope and trust that the State Govern ment will inquire as to why this irregularity was allowed to be perpetrated and will see to it that in future no such violations of the law are permitted by the administrators of the law". The facts of that case were entirely different with the facts of the case in hand. 8. Sri Misra then next relied upon the decision in Nakul Singh v. State, 1992 ALJ 55. That was a case dealing with an application for bail. There the accused persons claimed bail on the ground of illegal detention due to that absence of any valid order of remand. It was found on facts that the Magistrate while committing the case to the Court of Session, did not pass any other under Section 209, Cr. PC remanding the accused to custody during and until conclusion of trial and further that no order of remand to custody was also passed by the Sessions Judge under Section 309, Cr PC even though the case had come up before it on a number of dates. In such a situation the application for bail was allowed. It was also held: "in the present case it cannot be said that proper remand orders or even warrants exist for detaining the applicant in jail. In such cases the detained person can invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution by filing writ of habeas cor pus. But it has judicially been recognised that if they refer to under trials, they can apply for the lesser relief of release on bail". It has nowhere been held even in this case that the orders of the Magistrate adjourning the case to various dates without passing a proper order of remand to custody is open to challenge in revision or that bail could be claimed by filing an application in revision. 9. The next case relied upon by Sri Mishra is habeas corpus Petition No. 4605 of 1983, Sukhdeo Singh and others v. Superintendent, District Jail Nainital, decided on 16-5-1983. In that case also the Magibtrate concern ed has failed to past any order of remand as contemplated by Section 209, Cr PC remanding the accused to custody during and until the conclu sion of the trial, while committing the case to the Court of Session and on that ground the habeas corpus petition was allowed. 10. In that case also the Magibtrate concern ed has failed to past any order of remand as contemplated by Section 209, Cr PC remanding the accused to custody during and until the conclu sion of the trial, while committing the case to the Court of Session and on that ground the habeas corpus petition was allowed. 10. Sri Mishra has further cited of cases the Bechan Misra v. State U. P. , 1993 UP Crl, Rulings, J48 and Heera Lal v. State of U, P. , 1982 UP Crl Rulings, 283. Both these cases also do not help the applicant in any way on the question of maintainability of revision against an order of the Magistrate whereby either he has omitted to pass a proper and valid order remanding the accused to the custody or has passed Hegel remand order. In both these cases, this Court allowed the bail applications on the ground of illegal detention of the accused on the basis of remand orders not having been passed in accordance with law. 11. Reliance has next been placed on the decision in Mushtaq v. Superintendent Jail, Lucknaw, 1993 UP Crl Rulings 392. In this case, the accused challenged the. authority of the Jail to detain him in custody as the order of remand had not been passed by the court according to law and consequently the habeas carpus petition was allowed. 12. It is well-settled law and also not disputed by the applicants counsel that Section 397 (2), Cr PC puts a complete bar on the courts to entertain revisions against interlocutory orders. There can also be no dispute that the order of remand passed in the proceedings, is nothing but an interlocutory order. In the present case the applicant in revision has challenged the various orders passed by the learned Magistrate during the commitment proceedings after when the cognizance had been taken on the submission of charge-sheet. By all these orders the case has merely been adjourned on account of absence of one or the other accused who were on bail. These are all interlocutory orders and nut open to challenge in revi sion. Failure of the Magistrate to pass a valid order of remand on those dates could at best entitle the accused to be set at liberty in a habeas corpus petition or to bail in an application moved under Section 439, Cr PC. These are all interlocutory orders and nut open to challenge in revi sion. Failure of the Magistrate to pass a valid order of remand on those dates could at best entitle the accused to be set at liberty in a habeas corpus petition or to bail in an application moved under Section 439, Cr PC. Entitlement to such a relief is only a consequence, which may flow on account of the act or omission of the Magistrate, but these orders would not partake the character of final Orders. 13. Similar question arose for consideration in the decision in Manoj Kumar Agrawal v. State of U. P. , 1995 A. LJ 267 and Honble Kundan Singh, J. has held "whether there is accusation pending against any person or he is under trial for any offence the remand orders in such cases would be interlocutory in nature which are not revisable under Section 397 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code as those orders will not affect the accusation of charge pending against him. He can claim release by means of a habeas corpus petition or a writ petition proving his detention or custody as illegal. Thus in my opinion the proper remedy available in such cases is a writ or habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and not revision under Section 397/401, Cr PC. The Legislature has withdrawn Section 491 of the old Criminal Procedure Code with regard to habeas corpus. In the new Criminal Procedure Code there is no corresponding section to Section 491, Cr PC. Something accused persons allege illegal detention on the basis of illegality or impropriety in the series of remand orders. By means of a single revision all those remand orders cannot be sought to be revised". 14. The learned counsel for the applicant Sri Mishra then relied upon the certified copy of the order passed by Honble S. N. Saxena, J. in Criminal Revision No. 257 of 1996-Raju alias Rajeev v. State, in which the applicants were released on bail on account of the fact that after the commitment, the Sessions Judge had not passed any order of remand under Section 309, Cr PC. It would appear from the order that the learned Judge had not gone into the question whether such a revision was barred by the provisions of Section 397 (2), Cr PC. It would appear from the order that the learned Judge had not gone into the question whether such a revision was barred by the provisions of Section 397 (2), Cr PC. Similarly the said question was not gone into by Honble B. K. Sharma, J. while passing the order of bail in Criminal Revision No. 319 of 1996. 15. I am, therefore, of the view that the present revision is not entertainable because of the bar imposed by the statutory provisions as contained in Section 397 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the cases of present nature and proper and legal remedy is to either invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution by filing a habeas corpus petition or to apply for bail by moving an application under Section 439, Cr PC and a remedy by way of revision is not available under law. 16. In any view of the matter the perusal of the record shows that after the cognizance had been taken by the learned Magistrate, he had passed an order which exists on warrant (paper No. 35-Ka) whereby the Superintendent, District Jail, Varanasi has been authorised to keep in his custody the applicant In revision until the commitment of the case to the Court of Session. 17. Section 209, Cr PC In its application to the State of U. P. has been substituted as follows: -- (a) as soon as may be after complying with the provisions of Section 207, commit the case to the Court of Session; (b) subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to the custody until commitment of the case under clause (a) and thereafter during and until conclusion of the trial. This amendment has been brought by U. P. Act 16 of 1976. 18. From the above it is clear that after the charge-sheet is filed and the Magistrate takes cognizance, he has to first comply with the provisions of Section 207, Cr PC and thereafter to commit the case to the Court of Session. Before taking of the cognizance, the custody of accused is regu lated by the provisions of Section 167, Cr PC but after cognizance has been taken, the Magistrate has to act and pass remand orders in accordance with the provisions as contained in Section 209, Cr PC. Before taking of the cognizance, the custody of accused is regu lated by the provisions of Section 167, Cr PC but after cognizance has been taken, the Magistrate has to act and pass remand orders in accordance with the provisions as contained in Section 209, Cr PC. Clause (b) of the said section empowers the Magistrate to pass two different types of orders of remand to the custody. Firstly, he may remand the accused to the custody until the commitment of case to the Court of Session or in other words during the committal proceedings. Second stage arises when the Magistrate commits the case to the Court of Session and at that stage the law permits the Magistrate to remand the accused to custody during and until conclusion of trial before the Session Court. 19. In my opinion the legal requirement is not that such an order should necessarily be made on the regular order-sheet of the judicial record. If an order of remand in clear words has been made even on custody warrant, thereby authorising the Jail Superintendent to keep the accused in his custody until the case is committed to the Court of Session, the appli cant cannot be said to be in illegal detention on the basis of the said order. The object of order of remand to the custody is authorized to the authority concerned to keep the accused in his custody upto the time as indicated in the said order. 20. Thus, I find that in the present case even on facts the detention of the applicant is not found to be illegal. 21. For the above reasons, this revision falls and is hereby dismissed. The record of the lower court be sent forthwith to the Chief Judicial Magis trate, Varanasi with the direction that the Magistrate concerned shall expedite the commitment proceeding and shall make every endeavour to see that the case is committed to the Court of Session without any further delay. If he finds that other accused persons, who are on bail, are delibera tely delaying the commitment proceedings, it shall be open for him to cancel their bail and proceed according to law. Revision dismissed. .