The main legal point established in the judgment is that the order framing charge in a criminal case may or may not amount to an interlocutory order, depending on the specific circumstances of the case, and the nature of objections raised against it.

THOMAS, J.

Four learned Judges of this Court, while sitting single on different occasions, have spoken in different terms on a common subject - whether an order framing charge in a criminal case is an interlocutory order or not. All the four learned Judges have, to bolster up their respective points of view, relied on the Supreme Court decision in V. C. Sukla v. State, AIR 1980 SC 962 : (1980 Cri LJ 690). It was Janki Amma, J. who first said in Jayaprakash v. State, 1981 KLT 100 : (1981 Cri LJ 460) that framing charge is only an interlocutory order and hence no revision under S. 397(2) of the Criminal P.C., 1973 (for short 'the Code') would lie. Learned single Judge quoted from the decision in V. C. Sukla's case in support thereof. But, Chandrasekhara Menon, J. in Abdullakutty Haji v. Additional Judicial Ist Class Magistrate, 1982 KLT 861, dissented from Janki Amma, J. and took the view that a revision is entertainable as the order framing charge is not an interlocutory order. Learned Judge did not find the need to refer the question to a lager bench as the question, according to the learned Judge, was settled by the Supreme Court in V. C. Sukla's case, and observed : "In view of this clear pronouncement of the Supreme Court, it is not possible to conclude that no revision lies from an order framing charge when the proceedings are within the purview of Cr.P.C."

2. The position remained like that till 1987 when Pareed Pillay, J. felt (in Sarojani Amma v. Sarojini, 1987 (2) KLT 520 : (1988 Cri LJ 1362) that the view adopted by Janki Amma, J. is the correct understanding of the decision in V.C.Sukla's case. However, when the same question was mooted before Sreedharan, J. the learned Judge was not inclined to adopt the reasoning of Pareed Pillay, J. (vide Narayanan v. Vidyadharan, 1989 (2) KLT 613. The request made for reference to a larger bench was not accepted by Sreedharan, J. since he felt that in view of the clear declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in V. C. Sukla's case, there is no need to refer the question to a Bench. Sreedharan, J. thus adopted a view contrary to that of Pareed Pillay, J. and held that framing charge is not interlocutory order.

3. Now Pareed Pillay, J. before whom the question came up again, referred it to a larger Bench to "have an authoritative decision in view of the conflicting decisions".

4. Petitioner is the accused before the Sessions Court when the respondent (Excise Circle Inspector) filed a complaint before the Sessions Court alleging that the petitioner has committed an offence under S.20 (b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). Respondent alleged that petitioner was found in possession of 600 grams of ganja on 17-9-1991 which was detected by the Preventive Officer of the Excise Circle concerned who seized the ganja and arrested the petitioner. Before the charge was framed by the Sessions Court, petitioner raised a contention that respondent has no authority to file a complaint for an offence under the NDPS Act sine he has not been authorised by the State Government and hence the Sessions Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under the NDPS Act on a complaint filed by him. Learned Sessions Judge did not accede to the aforesaid contention and framed a charge against the petitioner. The present revision petition was filed against the said order.

5. Section 397(2) of the Code reads thus:

"The powers of revision conferred by sub-sec. (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding".

6. As all the four single Judges relied on the Supreme Court decision in V. C. Sukla's case in order to understand the scope of the expression "interlocutory order" in S.397(2) of the Code, a full understanding of the said decision is necessary to resolve the apparent conflict in the approaches made by the learned Judges.

7. A background of the case law would be pro