ORDER
M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.
1. Petitioner who is the accused in C.C. 15 of 1984 of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First C lass, Wadakkancherry was charged under Section 420 of the I.P.C. Challenging the framing of the charge petitioner filed Crl. R.P. 79 of 1986 before the Sessions Court, Trichur. The Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition holding that no revision would lie against framing of charge, itbeingonly an interlocutory order.
2. Contention of the petitioner is that the Sessions Judge went wrong in holding so. Counselrelying on Abdullakutty Haji v. Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate 1982 Ker LT 861 contended that revision lies from an order framing charge when the proceedings are within the purview of the Criminal P.C.
3. The question to be considered is whether the framing of charge is an interlocutory order or not and consequently revisable or not in view of Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 397(2) provides that the powers of revision shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceedings. In Jayaprakash v. State 1981 Ker LT 100 : 1981 Cri LJ 460 Janaki Amma J. had occasion to consider the question whether revision would lie from an order framing charge. Relying on V.C. Shukla v. State Janaki Amma J. held that the order framing charge is an interlocutory proceedings and as such no revision will lie in view of Section 397 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In 1982 Ker LT 861 Chandrasekhara Menon J. doubted 1981 Ker LT 100 : 1981 Cri LJ 460. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in there can be no two opinions about the question in issue as it has been held in unequivocal terms that framing of charge is purely an interlocutory order as it does not terminate the proceedings and as the trial goes on until it culminates in acquittal or conviction. It was argued before the Supreme Court that framing of charge is a matter of moment and therefore the order framing charge would be intermediate order and not an interlocutory order. Reliance was placed on (State of Karnataka v. L. Muni Swamy) and (Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra). The above two cases emphasized the application of judicial mind by the Court at the stage of framing charge. The nature and character of the order framing charge were not considered. In the Supreme Court held as follows:
Merely because emphasis is laid on the Court seriously applying its judicial mind at the stage of framing charge, and therefore,.it can be said to be an important stage, the order framing the charge even after applying the ratio of the later decisions would not be an order other than an interlocutory order. It would be unquestionably an interlocutory order.
As 1981 Ker LT 100 : 1981 Cri LJ 460 has followed the former decision is not open to any doubt at all.
4. The framing of the charge does not in any way terminate the proceedings. It is after framing the charge that the trial is proceeded with till its culmination in acquittal or conviction. In a case where the Court has passed an order discharging the accused it would be a final order as no further proceedings remain to be continued. By the order of discharge there is termination of the entire proceedings and so it cannot but be final. That is the reason why an order of discharge is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction. Position is entirely different in the case of framing of a charge. In V.C. Shukla v. State it has been held that framing of charge is unquestionably an interlocutory order. Under Article 141 of the Constitution of India the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within the territory of India. Article 141 empowers the Supreme Court to declare the law and it also states that it shall be binding on all the Courts in India. In view of the authoritative pronouncement in V.C. Shukla v. State that framing of charge is an interlocutory order the indubitable position is that such an order is not revisable as postulated under Section 397(2) of the Cr. P.C.
5. Thus the position is very clear that framing of charge not being interlocutory in nature cannot be challenged in revision as it is barred under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
