UMDANAND MISHRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the question whether the order framing a charge or refusing to discharge the accused is revisable under S. 397, Cr. P.C. or not, I have heard the detailed arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. Section 397, Cr. P.C. reads thus :-

(2.) It is argued that in view of sub-section (2) of S. 397, Cr. P.C. an order framing charge or an order refusing to discharge an accused being an interlocutory order is not revisable in view of the clear bar contained in sub-section (2).

(3.) In Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1978 SC 47, a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, while discussing the contours and parameters of the expression "interlocutory order" as occurring in sub-section (2) of S. 397, Cr. P.C. observed as under :-