1. 1. The present petition has been referred to this Bench as the learned Single Judge before whom this case came for decision, felt that the following important question of law is involved in this petition:

"Whether an order framing charge against the accused persons is an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 497(2), Cr.PC and if so, in what circumstances?"

2. The Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation), Jaipur submitted a charge-sheet against the accused petitioner Nemi Chand in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I. Cases), Jaipur, who after hearing arguments, framed charge against the accused petitioner under Section 420, IPC. Being aggrieved by the order framing charge against the petitioner, the petitioner preferred a revision petition in the court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur who rejected the same on the ground that no revision petition was maintainable under Section 397(2), Cr.PC as the order framing charge is an interlocutory order. Sessions Judge placed reliance on the decision of this court in P.P. Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, 1984 Cr.LR Raj. 397 In this case, the petitioner had preferred miscellaneous petition under Section 482, Cr.PC. When the matter came up before the learned Single Judge, as earlier authority of this court in Bharti Ram and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 1933 RCC 216 was cited wherein it was observed that revision petition was maintainable inspite of Section 397(2), Cr.PC. Learned Single Judge herself had taken the view that revision petition is maintainable as the order framing charges decides the rights of the parties, in as much as they are to face trial and as there was divergence of view between different Judges of this court, she thought it proper to refer the case to a larger Bench.

3. A general notice was issued to the members of the Bar about hearing of this petition.

4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties as also other Advocates on the important question of law (quoted above) involved in this petition.

5. Prior to the coming into force of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (here in after referred to as the 'New Code'), there was no statutory bar for entertaining revisions against the order framing charges. Section 397 of the New Code is reproduced below:

"397. Calling for records to exercise of powers of revision.-(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record."
Explanation.--All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purpose of this Sub-section and of Section 398.

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

(3) If an application under this Section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.

6. Section 397, Cr.PC (New Code) corresponds to Section 435 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (here in after referred to as the 'Old Code').

7. The legislative intention in enacting these provisions was not to limit the powers of the High Court sitting in revision except the provisions of Section 397(2) of the New Code and this new provision was introduced in order to