DALIP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DALIP Singh and other seek quashing of the impugned order dated 9th March, 1993 passed by the additional Sessions Judge, Patiala Annexure P. 1, dismissing the revision petition-filed by the Petitioners on the preliminary question of maintainability.

(2.) THE petitioners were charged for offence. under Sections 325/323/379, 429/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code by Shri G. K. Rai, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samana, vide order dated 29th September, 1992. Against this order the petitioners preferred a revision petition before the court of Sessions which was entrusted to Shri H. P. Handa, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. The learned Additional Sessions judge formed the opinion that the order framing of charge was interlocutory order and as such no revision petition was competent in view of section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 397, Sub-section (2) of the Code reads as follows:

(3.) THESE two authorities make things absolutely clear that order framing a charge is not an interlocutory order but is an intermediate as a quasi-final order and as such the revision is incompetent and section 397(2) of the Code will not operate as a bar The learned Additional Sessions Judge has misread the judgment of V.C. Shukla's case (supra) which related to the charge framed under the special Act and in view of the provisions of the said Act order framing of charge was held to be interlocutory. 1. hereby, accept this petition, quash order Annexure P. 1 dated 9th March, 1993, and direct the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, to restore the revision petition to its original number and to proceed in accordance with law.