revision against interlocutory order
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 23 February 2010
This query is : Resolved
(i) whether an order directing framing of charge or framing charge, in a case attracting the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is an interlocutory order and (ii) whether such an order can be challenged by way of (a) Revision Petition or (b) petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or (c) petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution.
Sanjeev Panda
(Expert) 23 February 2010
As per the recent Delhi High Court judgment in R.C. Sabharwal & others Vs. CBI & others (166(2010)DLT362, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that:
(i) Revision Petition is not maintainable against an order framing charge or directing framing of charge in a case attracting the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; (ii) Inherent Powers of the High Court cannot be invoked to challenge an order of the above-referred nature and; (iii) Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is maintainable against an order of the above-referred nature.
Guest
(Expert) 23 February 2010
no its not interlocutory order. Revision can be file against the order of framing the charge.
The term "interlocutory order" in S. 397(2) 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 tough 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 the order, because that would be against the very object
which formed the basis for insertion of this particular provision in S. 397.
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
revision would lie under Section 397(2). 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.
