DIPAK MISRA, CJ

1. In this batch of writ petitions, we are required to answer the reference made by the learned Single Judge in respect of the following question:

“Whether an order on charge framed by a Special Judge under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, being an interlocutory order, and when no revision against the order or a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. lies, can be assailed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, whether or not the offences committed include the offences under Indian Penal Code apart from offences under Prevention of Corruption Act?”

2. Before dwelling upon the issue under reference, it would be apt to state under what circumstances the reference arose. For the said purpose, it is necessitous to have a brief advertence to the facts in the referral order. The petitioners had filed writ petitions for quashment of the orders of the learned Special Judge framing charges for the offence punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short „the 1988 Act?) along with or without charges for offence under India Penal Code (for short „the IPC?). As the order of reference would reveal, the learned Single Judge has taken note of the fact that some of the petitions were filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and some petitioners had filed criminal revisions which were converted to writ petitions on such a prayer being made and further some writ petitions were filed after dismissal of the revision petitions as this Court had held that the revision petition for quashing of the charge framed under the 1988 Act was not maintainable. The learned Single Judge took note of the decision in Dharambir Khattar v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 159 (2009) DLT 636. In the said case, another learned Single Judge has opined thus:

“32. To conclude this part of the discussion it is held that in the context of Section 19 (3) (c) the words "no Court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial..." includes an interlocutory order in the form of an order on charge or an order framing charge. On a collective reading of the decisions in V.C.Shukla and Satya Narayan Sharma, it is held that in terms of Section 19 (3) (c) PCA, no revision petition would be maintainable in the High Court against order on charge or an order framing charge passed by the Special Court.

33. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, the preliminary objection of the CBI to the maintainability of the present petitions is required to be upheld……”

3. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge referred to the decision in R.C. Sabharwal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 166 (2010) DLT 362, wherein another learned Single Judge has held thus:

“56. I therefore hold that (i) Revision Petition is not maintainable against an order framing charge or directing framing of charge in a case attracting the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; (ii) Inherent Powers of the High Court cannot be invoked to challenge an order of the above-referred nature and; (iii) Writ Petition under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution is maintainable against an order of the above-referred nature.”

4. As Dhingra, J. did not agree with the view about the maintainability of a writ petition and also noticed that divergent views had been expressed by two other learned Judges he framed the question which has been reproduced hereinabove and referred the matter to the larger Bench. Because of the said reference, the matter has been placed before us.

5. In the case of Dharambir Khattar (supra), it has been held that no revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code would lie in respect of an interlocutory order in the form of an order on charge or an order framing charge under the 1988 Act. In R.C. Sabharwal (supra), the learned Single Judge concurred with the view expressed in Dharambir Khattar (supra) wherein the other