(1) We are called upon to answer three different questions of law arising in three criminal references Nos : 27 of 1977, 61 of 1978 and 28 of 1979 which, if stated more exhaustively, should read as under :-

(1) Whether the newly inserted sub-section (4-a) of Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which creates a bar against revision of an interlocutory order is retrospective in operation, in the sense, that it would affect even pending revisions and references ?

(2) Whether an order framing a charge is an interlocutory order so as to attract the bar created by sub-section (4-a) of Sec. 435 ?

(3) Whether an order refusing to summon a witness under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is also an interlocutory order that attracts the same bar ?

(2) A charge under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was framed against the petitioner S. K. Mahajan in Criminal Reference No. 27 of 1977 by Munsiff Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, by his order dated 8. 9. 1976. He challenged it before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, who by his order dated 26. 1. 1977 made a recommendation to this court that the charge being unwarranted may be quashed. While the, revision was still pending in this Court, large scale amendments were made to the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter the Code, by Act No ; XXXVII of 1978 hereinafter the Amending Act, which came into force on 1st April, 1976, one of these being insertion of sub-section (4-a) of Section 435 which reads as under :

"(4-a) The powers of revision conferred by this section shall not be excised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceedings."

(3) A preliminary objection, based upon the view taken by this court in its two earlier cases, namely, Narinder Kumar Vs. State, Cr. Revision Petition No. 24 of 1980 decided on 10. 2. 1981 and State vs. Zaman Shah 1981 S.L.J : 38, that an order framing a charge being interlocutory in nature is not revisable, was raised on behalf of the respondent. This objection was sought to be met by the opposite party in two ways : one, that the Amending Municipality Act is not, retrospective in nature and has therefore, no application to pending cases, and two, that an order framing a charge, in any event, is final in nature hence revisable. Reliance was pleaded upon a bench decision of the Bombay High Court in M/S Mohan Lal Devdanbhai Chokshi and ors, vs. J.S. Wagh and another, 1981 Cr. Law Journal : 454 wherein a contrary view has been taken that an order framing a charge is not interlocutory hence revisable. Since both the court had place reliance upon the same authority, namely, V.C. Shukla Vs. State through C.B.I., AIR 1980 SC, 962 for arriving at two opposite conclusions, the learned Acting Chief Justice considered it necessary to make a reference to a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement on questions Nos: (1) and (2) reproduced heretofore and made a reference accordingly.

(4) These very questions have been referred in Criminal Reference No: 61 of 1978. In this case, charge under section 498 and 498/109 R. P. C. respectively were framed against the petitioners Garibu and Mst. Chuchan by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Reasi by his order dated 7.9.1978. They challenged this order in revision, before Sessions Judge, Udhampur. The learned Sessions Judge being of the opinion that the charges not being warranted by fact were liable to be quashed, made a recommendation to this Court on 25. 11. 1978 accordingly.

(5) In the case out of which Criminal Reference No. 28 of 1979 has arisen, Munsiff Judicial Magistrate, Nowshera, by his order dated 18. 12. 78. had refused to summon a person as a court witness under section 540 Cr. P. C. at the instance of the petitioner complainant. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner challenged the said order before Sessions Judge, Rajouri, who made a reference to this Court that the order may be quashed as it was not in accordance with law. In this