ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURING CO LTD Vs. D D BHARGAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 134(1) (c) of the Constitution for a certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court of India from my order dated 21-11-1966 dismissing the petitioner's revision application presented under sections 439 and 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) On behalf of the respondent, it is objected that the impugned order cannot be described to be a final order witthin the meaning of Article 134 (1) (c) and, therefore, the present application is incompetent. It would be Open to the petitioner, according to this submission, to apply to the Supreme Court for special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. In support of this objection, the respondent's learned counsel has placed reliance on the State of U. P. v. Col. Sujan Singh, AIR 1964 SC 1897, according to which an order cannot be stated to be "final order" within the meaning of that expression in Article 134 of the Constitution if it does not of its own force bind or affect the rights of the parties. Reliance for this view has in this judgment been placed on an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Premchand Satramdas v. State of Bihar, AIR 1951 SC 11. Reference by the respondent's learned counsel has also been made to a decision of the Federal Court in Kuppuswami Rao v. The King, AIR 1949 FC 1, which lays down that "final order" must be an order which finally determines the points in dispute and brings the case to an end. It is further explained in this decision that to constitute a final order, it is not sufficient merely to decide an important or even a vital issue in the case, but the decision must not keep the matter alive and provide for its trial in the ordinary way. An interlocutory order made on a preliminary objection in the course of a criminal trial has been held in this case not to be a final order because it is not on a point which, decided either way. would terminate the matter before the Court finally.

(3.) On the other hand, Shri Ved Vyas has referred me to State of Punjab v. Shadi Lal, AIR 1960 SC 397, in which the head-note reads as under: