PRABHAKARAN Vs. EXCISE CIRCLE INSPECTOR WADAKKANCHERRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Four learned Judges of this court, while sitting single on different occasions, have spoken in different terms on a common subject -whether an order framing charge in a criminal case is an interlocutory order or not. All the four learned Judges have, to bolster up their respective points of view, relied on the Supreme Court decision in V.C. Sukla v. State ( AIR 1980 SC 962 ). It was Janki Amma, J. who first said in Jayaprakash v. State ( 1981 KLT 100 ) that framing charge is only an interlocutory order and hence no revision under S.397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') would lie. Learned single Judge quoted from the decision in V. C. Sukla's case in support thereof. But, Chandrasekhara Menon, J. in Abdullakutty Haji v. Additional Judicial Ist Class Magistrate ( 1982 KLT 861 ) dissented from Janaki Amma, J. and took the view that a revision is entertainable as the order framing charge is not an interlocutory order. Learned Judge did not find the need to refer the question to a larger bench as the question, according to the learned judge, was settled by the Supreme Court in V.C. Sukla's case, and observed: "In view of this clear pronouncement of the Supreme Court, it is not possible to conclude that no revision lies from an order framing charge when the proceedings are within the purview of Cr.P.C."

(2.) The position remained like that till 1987 when Pareed Pillay, J. felt (in Sarojani Amma v. Sarojini, 1987 (2) KLT 520 ) that the view adopted by Janaki Amma, J. is the correct understanding of the decision in V.C. Sukla's case. However, when the same question was mooted before Sreedharan, J. the learned Judge was not inclined to adopt the reasoning of Pareed Pillay, J. (vide Narayanan v. Vidyadharan, 1989 (2) KLT 613 ). The request made for reference to a larger bench was not accepted by Sreedharan, J. since he felt that in view of the clear declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in V.C. Sukla's case, there is no need to refer the question to a Bench. Sreedharan, J. thus adopted a view contrary to that of Pareed Pillay, J. and held that framing charge is not interlocutory order.

(3.) Now Pareed Pillay, J. before whom the question came up again, referred it to a larger Bench to "have an authoritative decision in view of the conflicting decisions".