Guddu @ Vinay vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1538 MP

                                           1

               HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                    PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
                    Criminal Appeal No.3588/2021




Counsel for the Appellant         :        Mr. Sidharth Datt, Advocate

Counsel for the State             :        Mr. Prashant Mishra



Present    : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Atul Sreedharan

                             O R D E R

(03/02/2022)

There is an Office objection in this case to the

effect that a Criminal Appeal will not be maintainable and

instead, it should be a Criminal Revision. Before dealing with

the Office objection, it would be necessary to brief ly

appreciate the facts of this ca se.

2. The petitioner has preferred the present Criminal Appeal in a

case which is pending before the Court of Special Judge,

Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989, (for short 'SC/ST Act' ), which case also includes the

offences punishable under the provisions of the SC/ST Act.

The charges were framed against the appellants herein under

Sections 307, 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. as also

under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The appellants wanted

to challenge the order framing charges against them and

therefore, they filed the present Criminal Appeal in light of

Section 14A of the SC/ST Act . Section 14A (1) of the SC/ST

Act being relevant for the controversy involved in this ca se is

being reproduced hereinunder: -

"14A. Appeals - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie, from any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court or an Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both on facts and on law. "

Thus, Section 14A(1) of the SC/ST Act starts with a non

obstante clause to the effect that notwithstanding anything

under the Code of Criminal Procedure, an appeal shall lie

from the judgment, sentence, or order, not being an

interlocutory order of a Special Court.

3. In another case, where the accused were similarly situated,

they preferred a Criminal Revision instead of an appeal

U/s.14A of the SC/ST Act, parties bei ng Salman Mansuri Vs.

The State of M.P. , reported in Criminal Revision No.349/2021 .

In that case, the Office had taken an objection that it would a

Criminal Appeal U/s.14A of the SC/ST Act which should have

been filed and not a Criminal Revision. The said objection was

examined by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, which

examined Section 14A and thereafter concluded that framing

of a charge is an interlocutory order and therefore, a revision

would lie. Thereafter, the objection so raised by t he Office

was ignored and the case was proceeded with . Relying upon

the said order dated 03.03.2021 passed in Criminal Revision

No.349/21, the Office had taken an objection in the present

case that as the appellants herein have preferred this appeal

against the order framing charges passed by the Special

Judge, SC/ST Act, a Criminal Revision would lie, in light of

the order passed by the co -ordinate Bench in Cri.Rev.

No.349/2021 dated 03.03.2021.

4. Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. empowers the High Court and the

Sessions Court to call for the record of the trial court to

exercise power of revision U/s.397(1) . It would be apt to

reproduce Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., which reads as under: -

"397. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision:

(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order,- recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record . Explanation.- All Magistrates whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub- section and of section 398. (2) The powers of revision conferred by sub - section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. (3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them ."

5. Sub-Section (2) of Section 397 of the Cr. P.C. clearly

prohibits the power of revision being exercised in relation

to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry,

trial, or other proceeding. Therefore, if the framing of

charge is an interlocutory order, then the powers o f High

Court or the Sessions in exercising revisional power would

be barred in view of Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C.

6. As to what constitutes an interlocutory order has

consistently attracted the attention of the courts. In

Amarnath and others Vs. State of Haryana 1, the

Supreme Court was examining if an order summoning an

accused to stand trial was an interlocutory order , not

amenable to a revision? In a complaint case, the Magistrate

had directed the police to investigate in to the allegations in

the complaint. Police filed a report absol ving the

prospective accused perso ns. Magistrate acce pted the

report and dismissed the complaint. On revision t o the

Court of Sessions by the co mplainant, the case was

remanded to the Magistrate for further enquiry. The

Magistrate st raight away issued summo ns to the accused

who approached the High Court in revision against the

summons issued against them. The High C ourt dismissed

the revision in limine holding that the order of the

summoning was an interlocutory order and therefore not

amenable to revision in the light of s. 397(2) Cr.P .C. The

supreme court held in paragraph 6 "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

denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary

nature which do not decide or touch the important

(1977) 4 SCC 137

rights or liabilities of the parties . Any order which

substantially affects the right of the accused or

decides certa in 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 for 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 reports and such

other steps in aid of the pending proceeding, may no

doubt amount to interlocutory orders against which,

no revisio n 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."

7. In Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra 2, the

Supreme Court while examining the true import of the

phrase "interlocutory order" in s. 397 (2) Cr.P.C held that

the same cannot be restrictive in the sense , it cannot be

construed that all order that are not final order are

interlocutory for if such an interpretation is resorted to , it

would negate the legislative intent in giving power of

revision to the High Court and the Sessions Court. The

(1977) 4 SCC 551

Supreme Court placed order s that are not final orders but

still amenable to the re visional jurisdiction u /s. 397 Cr.P.C ,

in the category of "intermediate orders ".

8. Thus, any order that affects the rights of the parties cannot

be deemed to be an in terlocutory order , but the same

would be an intermediate order . An order framing charges

affects the right of an accused, where it compels an

accused to stand trial in a case where he can show that the

material in the chargesheet do not even reveal a prima

facie case against him and that he deserve s to be

discharged. Therefore, an order framing charges is not an

interlocutory order and so, u/s. 14A of the S C/ST Act, an

appeal would lie .

9. The objections raised by the office is rejected. List on

10/03/22.

(Atul Sreedharan) Judge

Digitally signed by ASHISH DATTA Date: 2022.02.08 10:53:00 +05'30' Adobe Reader version: 11.0.8