1. Petitioner who is the accused in C.C 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. R P. 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 with in 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 revisiable or not io 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.
4. In Jayaprakash v. State (1981 KLT. 100) Janaki Armma J. bad occasion to consider the question whether revision would lie from an order framing charge. Relying on V.C Shukla v. State (1980 Supp SCC 92 : AIR 1980 SC. 962) Janaki Amroa 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 1980 Supp SCC 92 : 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 (1972) 3 SCC 282 : 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 1980 Supp SCC 92 : AIR. 1980 SC. 962 at 1005 the Supreme Court held as follows:—
“Merely because emphasis is laid on the Court seriously applying its judicial mind at the stage of framing charge, and therefore, it can be said to be an important stage, the order framing the charge even after applying the ratio of the later decisions would not be an order other than an interlocutory order. It would be unquestionably an interlocutory order.”
5. As 1981 KLT. 100 has followed 1980 Supp SCC 92 : AIR. 1980 SC. 962 the former decision is not open to any doubt at all.
6. The framing of the charge does not in any way terminate the proceedings. It is after framing the charge that the trial is proceeded with till its culmination in acquittal or conviction. In a case where the Court has passed an order discharging the accused it would be a final order as no further proceedings remain to be continued. By the order of discharge there is termination of the entire proceedings and so it cannot but be final. That is the reason why an order of discharge is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction. Position is entirely different in the case of framing of a charge. In V.C Shukla v. State (1980 Supp SCC 92 : AIR. 1980 SC 962) it has been held that framing of charge is unquestionably an interlocutory order. Under Article 141 of the Constitution of India the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within the territory of India. Article 141 empowers the Supreme Court to declare the law and it also states that it shall be binding on all the Courts in India. In view of the authoritative pronouncement in V.C Shukla v. State (1980 Supp SCC 92 : AIR 1980 SC 962) that framing of charge is an interlocutory order the indubitable position is that such an order is not revisable as postulated under S. 397(2) of the Cr. P.C
7. Thus the position is very clear that framing of charge being interlocutory in nature cannot be challenged in revision as it is barred under S. 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
8. The petition is dismissed.
S.MDismissed.