ORDER :

RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN, J.

Twelve different Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions were filed under Section 482 Cr. P. C. before a learned Single Bench of this Court. In the said petitions, the petitioners had challenged either an order framing the charges, or an order refusing to discharge the accused, or an order dismissing applications for discharging the accused. Before the learned Single Judge, the learned counsel for the petitioners had raised two contentions: firstly, an order framing the charge, or the order refusing to discharge the accused, or the order dismissing an application for discharge are not interlocutory orders. Instead, such orders are intermediate orders. Thus, such orders can be challenged under the revisional jurisdiction of this court under Section 397 (1) Cr. P. C. Since they are intermediate orders, they are not hit by the bar contained in Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. Secondly, in the alternative, since the cases deal with offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act ("the P. C. Act", for short), the impugned orders can still be challenged under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if they cannot be challenged under the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 (1) Cr.P.C.

2. Faced with these two contentions, the learned Single Judge was confronted with two sets of contradictory decisions pronounced by different learned Single Benches of this Court. For, in P. V. Amarnath Prasad v. State by CBI /ACB, Bangalore [(2012) 4 Kant. L. J. 483], in Smt. A. C. Kamakshi v. Union of India [Crl.R.P.No.703/2009, decided on 24.02.2010] and in Sri Katta Subramanya Naidu v. State of Karnataka [Crl.R.P.No.432/2013, decided on 03.11.2016] while dealing with orders framing charge for offences under the P. C. Act, three different learned Single Benches had opined that the orders framing charge were not interlocutory orders. Hence, the said orders could be challenged under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 (1) Cr.P.C.

3. However, a contrary view was expressed in the case of Dr. Pervin v. State of Karnataka [Crl.R.P. No.1652/2016, decided on 06.01.2017], wherein an order dismissing an application for discharge was challenged, in the case of Revanna and Others v. State of Karnataka [Crl.R.P.No.57/2017, decided on 24.03.2017] and in the case of Sri. T. Nagaraju v. State of Karnataka [Crl.R.P.No.935/2016, decided on 31.05.2017]. In these three cases, three different learned Single Benches declared that the impugned orders framing charges, or dismissing applications for discharge are interlocutory orders. Hence, such orders cannot be challenged under the revisional jurisdictions of this court under Section 397 (1) Cr.P.C. For, Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C., prohibits challenge of interlocutory order under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

4. Therefore, the learned Single Judge referred twin issues to a Division Bench under Section 8 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 ("the High Court Act", for short). The twin issues are as under:

Whether an order passed by a Special Court rejecting the application filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C., r/w 227 Cr.P.C., by an accused for discharge, who is being prosecuted for offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, would be amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 (1) Cr.P.C. ?

OR

Whether an order rejecting the application for discharge filed by the accused or an order passed to proceed to frame the charge against the accused under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is an interlocutory order and as such the bar contained in Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C., would be attracted ?

5. Since only legal issues have been referred to this Bench, the narration of facts of each case is clearly unnecessary. However, few essential facts need to be pointed out: firstly, four of the Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions, namely Crl. Misc. Petition No.3217/2017, Crl. Mis. Petition No.4526/2017, Crl. Misc. Petition 4527/2017, and Crl. Mis. Petition No.452