Sudesh Kumar And Ors. vs The State Of Delhi
2002 Latest Caselaw 730 Del

JUDGMENT

S.K. Agarwal, J.

1. This petition under Sections 482/483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") is directed against the order dated 18th February, 2002 passed by Sh. D.C. Anand, Addl. Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Delhi dismissing revision petition, as not maintainable against the order dated 7th August, 2001 framing charges under Sections 147/149/186/353/332/342/506 IPC in case FIR No. 247/98 P.S. Vivek Vihar by ACMM.

2. Notice. Mr. Pawan Sharma accepts notice on behalf of State. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the point involved in the revision petition is very short and the same can be heard and disposed of at this stage itself.

3. Prosecution allegations, in brief, are that on 29th August, 1998 at about 4.30 p.m. at Anaj Mandi Chowk, Shahdara, petitioners along with others formed an un-lawful assembly with the common object of obstructing the SDM, Vivek Vihar and other Government officials from discharging their public duties and used criminal force against them. They wrongfully confined the SDM and threatened the said public servants with dire consequences. The case was registered and petitioners were arrested. After completion of investigation, challan was filed. On the basis of material available on record, Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 7th August, 2001 held that prima facie case under the above noted Sections is made out against the petitioners. Charge was framed against them. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioners filed a revision petition which came up for hearing before Addl. Sessions Judge, who by impugned judgment and order dated 18th February, 2002 held that order framing charge is an interlocutory order and revision against such an order is not maintainable under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. and dismissed the same, while so holding reliance was placed on the observations made by the Supreme Court in V.C. Shukla v. State , a decision of Single Bench of Kerala High Court in Sarojini Amma v. Sarojini , 1988 Crl. L.J. 1362. This order is under challenge.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the order framing charge against the accused affects and adjudicates their rights on a particular aspect of the trial, therefore, the same cannot be said to be interlocutory order, beyond the purview of revisional jurisdiction. Learned APP for the State very frankly conceded the same.

5. The issue whether the order framing charge is an interlocutory order or not, is settled by authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court. In Amar Nath v. State of Haryana , it was held:-

"It seems to us that the term 'interlocutory order' in Section 397(2) of the 1973 Code has been used in a restricted sense and not in any broad or artistic sense. It merely denote orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or the liabilities of the parties. Any order which substantially affects the right of the accused, or decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar a revision to the High Court against that order, because that would be against the very object which formed the basis of insertion of this particular provision in Section 397 of the 1973 Code. Thus, for instance, orders summoning witnesses, adjourning cases, passing orders for bail, calling for a reports and such other steps in aid of the pending proceedings, may no doubt amount to interlocutory orders against which no revision would lie under Section 397(2) of the 1973 Code. But orders which are matters of moment and which affect or adjudicate the rights of the accused or a particular aspect of the trial cannot be said to be interlocutory order so as to be outside the purview of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court."

6. Again the expression "interlocutory order" as used in Section 11(1) of the Special Courts Act, 1979 came up for consideration before the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in V.C. Shukla v. State, . The Court after referring to its earlier decisions, by a majority judgment, approved the law laid down by them in Amar Nath's case (supra) and held that the term "interlocutory order" used in Section 397(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code has to be given a liberal meaning in favor of the accused in order to ensure complete fairness of the trial. It was further held that the Special Courts Act was meant to cover only specified number of crimes and criminals for speedy disposal of such cases, therefore, different interpretation was put on the words "interlocutory order" to eliminate all possible delays. Taking into consideration, the objets and reasons behind Section 11(1) of the Special Courts Act, it was held that expression "interlocutory order" under this Section has been used in natural sense and not in the wider sense as used in Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. It was held:

"Thus, summing up the entire position the inescapable conclusion that we reach is that giving the expression 'interlocutory order' its natural meaning according to the test laid down, as discussed above, particularly in Kuppuswami's case and applying the non obstante clause, we are satisfied that so far as the expression 'interlocutory order' appearing in Section 11(1) of the Act is concerned, it has been used in the natural sense and not in a special or wider sense as used by the Code in Section 397(2) . The view taken by us appears to be in complete consonance with the avowed object of the Act to provide for a most expeditious trial and quick dispatch of the case tried by the Special Court, which appears to be the paramount intention in passing the Act."

(emphasis supplied)

Thus the revision against the order framing charge is an order affecting material rights of the parties, therefore, revision petition is maintainable. I respectfully disagree with the view taken by the learned Single Bench of the Kerala High Court in Sarojini Amma (supra), referred to in the order under challenge.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 18th February, 2002 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge dismissing the revision on the ground of non-maintainability is set aside. The Addl. Sessions Judge is directed to decide the revision petition on merits. Any observation made herein shall not affect the merits of the case.