JUDGMENT 1. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the sixth accused challenging the order dated 19.12.2013 in Cr.M.P.No.975 of 2013, in C.C.No.44 of 2013 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for E.C. and N.D.P.S. Act Cases, Pudukkottai. 2. It may be relevant to narrate the facts leading to passing of the order impugned herein: (i) Based on specific information, a team of NCB Officers searched a house in Sivagangai District on 22.03.2013 and busted a clandestine Methamphetamine Laboratory that was illegally functioning in that house. The Officers also seized about 5.77 Kgs., of Methamphetamine which is a psychotropic substance covered under the NDPS Act. In the course of investigation, the Officers recorded the statements of five persons under Section 67 of the NDPS Act who confessed to the offence of illegal manufacturing of Methamphetamine in the said house and they also revealed the role of Rafiudeen @ Rafiq (A.6). Thereafter, the Officers searched the premises of A.6 on 16.05.2013 at Chennai and recovered several incriminating materials under a cover of mahazar in the presence of independent witnesses. On coming to know that the Officers are tightening the noose around him, A.6 absconded and despite efforts by the Officers, they were not able to apprehend him. (ii) The Officers completed the investigation and filed a complaint against seven persons for the offences punishable under Sections 21, 22, 25, 25- A, 27-A, 28, 29 and 30 of the NDPS Act, before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for E.C. and N.D.P.S. Act Cases, Pudukkottai. (iii) In the said case, it appears that A.1 and A.2 are Iranian nationals who were involved in this illegal manufacture of the said psychotropic substance, in conspiracy with the other accused including A.6 herein. (iv) In the said complaint, A.6 was shown as absconding accused. The Special Court took cognizance of the offences and the complaint was numbered as C.C.No.44 of 2013. Thereafter, the Special Court issued a non-bailable warrant against A.6 for securing his presence before the Court. A.6 approached this Court and filed Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20090 of 2013 for anticipatory bail on 06.08.2013. The Narcotic Control Bureau filed a strong objection before this Court and thereafter, the petition for anticipatory bail was withdrawn. Thereafter, the Special Court issued a non-bailable warrant against A.6 for securing his presence before the Court. A.6 approached this Court and filed Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20090 of 2013 for anticipatory bail on 06.08.2013. The Narcotic Control Bureau filed a strong objection before this Court and thereafter, the petition for anticipatory bail was withdrawn. (v) A.6 filed Cr.M.P.No.975 of 2013 before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for E.C. and N.D.P.S. Act Cases, Pudukkottai, for recalling the non-bailable warrant without his actual presence before the Court. The Special Court dismissed the petition on 19.12.2013, aggrieved by which, A.6 is before this Court in this Criminal Revision Case. 3. This Criminal Revision Case was taken up before this Court for admission on 20.01.2014 and the revision petitioner was directed to furnish the copies of the typed set of papers to the Special Public Prosecutor for NCB Cases. Thereafter, this matter was adjourned to 27.01.2014, 29.01.2014, 13.02.2014, 20.02.2014, 25.02.2014 and 27.02.2014. On 27.02.2014, this Court directed the respondent not to proceed with the execution of the warrant and the case was adjourned to 05.03.2014. On 05.03.2014, I passed the following order: "The counsel for the petitioner is seeking time. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter is adjourned to 12.03.2014 finally. The interim order already granted is not extended because a competent court under NDPS Act Cases has issued warrant to the petitioner for his appearance. But till now he has not appeared before the said court." 4. The case was again posted only on 09.04.2014 and on that day, Mr. Seeni Sulthan, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner sought time again on the ground that he was engaging a Counsel from Chennai. At his request, the case was adjourned finally to 16.04.2014. On 16.04.2014, there was no representation for the revision petitioner and so, the matter was directed to be posted under the caption 'for dismissal' to 21.04.2014. 5. Today, i.e., 21.04.2014, when the matter was taken up, Mr. M.Seeni Sulthan, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner filed a Memo, dated Nil., withdrawing his appearance from the case. He also made an endorsement to that effect in the bundle. 6. 5. Today, i.e., 21.04.2014, when the matter was taken up, Mr. M.Seeni Sulthan, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner filed a Memo, dated Nil., withdrawing his appearance from the case. He also made an endorsement to that effect in the bundle. 6. Since he had withdrawn his appearance, I proceeded to scrutinize the records myself, because under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is to examine the records of the inferior Court to find out if there is any illegality or impropriety or perversity in the orders of the trial Court. 7. I asked the learned Special Public Prosecutor for NCB Cases to state his case. 8. At that juncture, Mr. M.Seeni Sulthan, learned Counsel represented that he has no faith in me, because I was the Special Public Prosecutor for NCB and therefore, I will have a bias in their favour. 9. It is a fact that I was the Special Public Prosecutor for the Central Government upto 2006 and thereafter, I had nothing to do with NCB and I was elevated to the High Court in October 2013. 10. This representation by Mr. M.Seeni Sulthan, reminded me of the following parable of Swamy Ramakrishna Paramahamsar: "When two sannyasis were crossing a river, they found a young lady struggling to cross the river. One of them offered to carry her, and he carried her to the other bank of the river and dropped her there. The other sannyasi felt very uneasy. Late in the evening, he asked his friend about the propriety of a sannyasi carrying a young woman, for which, the other replied "I dropped her long back in the bank, but you are still carrying her in your mind". So too, I had dropped all affiliations with these Departments way back in 2006, but, Mr. M.Seeni Sulthan, seems to be carrying this in his mind and troubling himself with unwanted thoughts. 11. Though his representation may amount to contempt, I felt that it deserves to be ignored as an emotional outburst of a young turk. Mr. M.Seeni Sulthan, an youngster, has a long way to go in the legal career and I am confident that age will bring sobriety and wisdom on him. 12. 11. Though his representation may amount to contempt, I felt that it deserves to be ignored as an emotional outburst of a young turk. Mr. M.Seeni Sulthan, an youngster, has a long way to go in the legal career and I am confident that age will bring sobriety and wisdom on him. 12. Coming to the facts of the case, I find that this Criminal Revision Case is not maintainable in view of Section 397 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, because the order impugned herein is an interlocutory order and not a final order. The order issuing a non-bailable warrant is not a final order, but an interlocutory order and therefore, it is not revisable in the light of Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 13. The Honourable Supreme Court in M/s. Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. M/s. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd. reported in 2001 AIR SCW 3413 : AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 3625, has held that if the contention of the objector is upheld, will the criminal proceedings as a whole culminate? If it culminates, then, it is a final order, if not, it is an interlocutory order. 14. Applying the said test to this case, if the objection of the revision petitioner that the trial Court should recall the warrant without his presence is upheld, it will not terminate the criminal prosecution against him. Therefore, the order impugned herein is an interlocutory order. 15. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed and the order dated 19.12.2013 in Cr.M.P.No.975 of 2013 in C.C.No.44 of 2013 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for E.C. and N.D.P.S. Act Cases, Pudukkottai, is confirmed.