V.K. JAIN, J.

1. These petitions involves a common questions of law as to (i) whether an order directing framing of charge or framing charge, in a case attracting the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is an interlocutory order and (ii) whether such an order can be challenged by way of (a) Revision Petition or (b) petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or (c) petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution.

2. Section 19(3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act provides as under:

?(c) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground and no court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings.

3. In ‘Dharambir Khattar & Ors vs. CBI’ 2009 IV AD (Delhi) 657, four criminal revision petitions directed against the Order on Charge, passed by the learned Special Judge under Section 120B of the IPC, read with various provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, were filed by the accused persons, against whom charges were framed. Relying upon the provisions of Section 19(3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, a preliminary objection was raised by CBI disputing maintainability of the petitions.

In support of its contention, CBI referred to the decisions of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in =State vs. Navjot Sandhu, 2003 (6) SCC 641 and =Satya Narayan Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan‘ AIR 2001 (8) SCC 607. It also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in ‘V.C. Shukla vs. CBI’ 1980 (Suppl.) SC 921 in support of the contention that Order on Charge in a corruption case is an interlocutory order.

4. After examining the provisions of Section 19(3)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 11 of Special Courts Act, 1979 and Section 34 of Prevention of Terrorism Act, the Court was of the view that they are pari materia with each other and held that the Order on Charge is an interlocutory order. It was further held that in view of the embargo placed by Section 19(3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, no revision petition would be maintainable in the High Court against Order on Charge or an order framing charge, passed by the Special Judge.

5. During the course of arguments, it was contended before this Court that notwithstanding the provision of Section 19(3)(c) of the Act, the power of the High Court under Article 226 and 227of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, remain untrammeled and could be invoked in appropriate case. The argument was rejected, holding that it does not survive after the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Navjot Siddhu (supra) and Satya Narayan Sharma’s case (supra).

6. The following contentions have primarily been made by the learned counsels for the petitioners (i) an order framing charge or directing framing of charge even in a case attracting the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is not an interlocutory order and therefore revision against such an order is not barred and the judgment of this Court in Dharambir Khattar’s case (supra) holding therein that a Revision Petition against such an order is not maintainable needs reconsideration by a larger Bench; (ii) the power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have not been taken away by Section 19(3)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act and in suitable cases such powers can be invoked, when an order framing charge or directing framing of charge in a corruption case is challenged, by a person aggrieved from such an order; (iii) the constitutional power of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution have not been and cannot be taken away by a statutory enactment, including Section 19(3) (c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This is also their contention that the observations of this Court in the case of Dharambir Khattar (supra) to the effect that neither powers under Section 482 of the C