ORDER These Orders, according to Law, arise out a Criminal Revision Case, filed by the Revision Petitioners, against the respondents 1 and 2, under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., 1973, questioning the, validity and legality, of the adjudications made by, and set forth in para 2, infra. 2. Common orders, dated 20-3-2003 of the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram, made in Crl.M.P.No. 1208 of 2003, in S.T.C.No. 46/1998 and connected 9 other Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions in connected S.T.Cs. of its file. 3. Perused the material papers of the Record. 4. Arguments were heard of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for R-1 and the learned counsel for R-2, Sri R.N. Reddy. 5. Revision petitioners 1 to 3 herein correspond, respectively, to petitioners 1 to 3 in the said Crl.M.P.1208/2003 and A-1 to A-3 in the said STC No. 46/1998. R-2 herein its the sole complainant in that S.T.C. and the sole respondent in that Crl.M.P., being the Provident Enforcement Officer, Vizianagaram. R-1-State of Andhra Pradesh herein is impleaded, for the first time, as such, as per Rule requirement. 6. The parties are, here-in-after, referred to with reference to their respective descriptions in that S.T.C. as the Complainant, A-1, A-2 and A-3, unless, otherwise, so specified. 7. A-1 to A-3 are being prosecuted by the complainant in that S.T.C., in that Trial Court in respect of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 14 (2), 14A(1) and 14A (2) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, read with Para 42( d) of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995. 8. In that S.T.C., A-1 to A-3 (?) filed the said Crl.M.P.No. 1208/2003, for receiving the documents as evidence on behalf of the complainant in the aforesaid S.T.C., during its trial, etc. A-1 to A-3 opposed the same, and urged for its dismissal. 9. After due enquiry into the said Crl.M.P.No.1208/2003, the said Magistrate's Court adjudicated thereupon, by its now impugned order, dated 20-3-2003, set forth in para 2, supra, allowing the same and receiving the documents tendered therewith. 10. Aggrieved thereby, and questioning the, validity and legality thereof, A-1 to A-3 filed the present Revision Case, as set forth, in paras 1 and 2, supra. 11. 10. Aggrieved thereby, and questioning the, validity and legality thereof, A-1 to A-3 filed the present Revision Case, as set forth, in paras 1 and 2, supra. 11. Receiving of the documents, as aforesaid, by the said Magistrate's Court, for using the same, as evidence in the said S.T.C., during its trial, will not have the factual, or, legal effect of deciding rights of the parties, in the main STC. After receiving those documents, they will be tendered through proper witnesses for the complainant, for being exhibited as exhibits, and, later A-1 to A-3 will have the opportunities to cross-examine the witnesses, as well as, to impeach those documents and to prove that they are not genuine, fabricated, or, unreliable, etc., and hence, have to be rejected, as such etc., as claimed by them. So, therefore, by mere receiving the documents. A-1 to A-3 will not be prejudiced, ipso facto, much less, their rights in the main case will ipso facto have prejudicial effect against them. As already observed, A-1 to A-3 will have right to question them, at the time of cross-examination of the witnesses and also at the time of arguments in to the main case. 12. So, therefore, the impugned orders are, only, of interlocutory nature, apart from the same being passed in an interlocutory miscellaneous petition, and hence, comes, or, falls within the purview, or, scope or, ambit, of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 397 of Cr.P.C. 1973. 13. Hence, exercise of revisional powers, by this Court, under sub-section (1) of Section 397 of Cr.P.C, read with Section 401, thereof is forbidden by sub-section (2) of the said Section 397, Cr.P.C., 1973, and hence, the same operates as a bar for, exercise of such revisional authority. 14. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case is not maintainable at Law, and hence, is liable to be dismissed, as such, as is being done, hereunder. 15. Hence, the High Court doth hereby adjudicate upon the Criminal Revision Case, dismissing the same, in toto.