SAROJINI AMMA Vs. SAROJINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner who is the accused in CC 15 of 1984 of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Wadakkancherry was charged under S.420 of the IPC Challenging the framing of the charge petitioner filed Crl. RP 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, it being only an interlocutory order.

(2.) Contention of the petitioner is that the Sessions Judge went wrong in holding so. Counsel relying on Abdullakutty Haji v. Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, ( 1982 KLT 861 ) contended that revision lies from an order framing charge when the proceedings are within the purview of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(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 S.397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. S.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 KLT 100 ) Janaki Amrna J. had occasion to consider the question whether revision would lie from an order framing charge. Relying on V. C. Shukla v. State ( AIR 1980 SC 962 ) Janaki Am ma J. held that the order framing charge is an interlocutory proceeding and as such no revision will lie in view of S.397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In 1982 KLT 861 Chandrasekhara Menon J. doubted 1981 KLT 100. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in AIR 1980 SC 962 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 1977 (3) SCR 113 (State of Karnataka v. L. Muni Swamy and AIR 1972 SC 545 (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 AIR 1980 SC 962 at 1005 the Supreme Court held as follows:-