An order of discharge is not an interlocutory order and, therefore, revision against that order is maintainable.

1. Gurcharan Singh accused has filed this application under S. 482, Cr. P. C. for quashing the order dated 19th May, 1977 passed by the second Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur (Shri R. K. Syngal) in case State V/s. Gurcharan Singh and others now pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Batala (Shri Ajay Kumar), whereby he accepted the revision petition filed against the order dated 23rd Nov. 1976, of the trial Court by which Gurcharan Singh accused had been discharged and setting aside that order he sent the case back to the trial Court with the direction that a charge against Gurcharan Singh accused be also framed and the case be then disposed of according to law.

2. The facts of the case which are necessary for the disposal of this petition may briefly be stated as follows. The police presented a challan under Ss. 440 and 427, I.P.C., against the three accused, namely. Gurcharan Singh, Pritam Singh and Baldev Raj in the trial Court. That Court, after hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, and the counsel for the accused and also after going through the documents placed on the file found that a prima facie case under Ss. 440 and 441, I. P. C. was made out against Pritam Singh and Baldev Raj accused while no such prima facie case was made out against Gurcharan Singh accused. This finding was given by the trial Court because the name of Gurcharan Singh did not find mention in the First Information Report and that his name, as being one of the participants in the commission of the crime, found mention for the first time in the statement of one Chhinda recorded under S. 161, Cr. P. C. after a period of about six months of the occurrence. Accordingly, the trial Court, vide its order dated 23rd Nov. 1976, held that no prima facie case was made out against Gurcharan Singh while a prima facie case under Ss. 440 and 441, IPC, was made out only against Baldev Raj and Pritam Singh, and in the result, it discharged Gurcharan Singh while charged the other two accused under Ss. 440 and 441, IPC. Feeling aggrieved against the order of the trial Court, the State went in revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the counsel for the parties, passed the impugned order dated 19th May, 1977. In that order, it was held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that no doubt the First Information Report was silent about the third accused, namely, Gurcharan Singh, but since Buta Singh, Balwant Singh and Munshi Singh, in their statements recorded by the investigating Officer under S. 161, Cr. P. C. during investigation of the case, stated that all the three accused, namely, Baldev Raj, Pritam Singh and Gurcharan Singh had committed trespass and damaged the complainants crop, certainly from that material a prima facie case against all the accused, including Gurcharan Singh, was made out. He also held that the learned trial Court wrongly ignored the statements of the witnesses recorded under S. 161, Cr. P. C. so far as Gurcharan Singh accused was concerned and, therefore there was no justification for the trial Court to discharge Gurcharan Singh accused. He further held that the order dated 23rd Nov. 1976, of the trial Court by which Gurcharan Singh was discharged was not an interlocutory order, because by that order the case against Gurcharan Singh stood disposed of. In the end, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide his impugned order, set aside the order dated 23rd Nov. 1976, passed by the trial Court, whereby it had discharged Gurcharan Singh accused and sent the case back to the trial Court with the direction that the charge against Gurcharan Singh be also framed and the case be then disposed of according to law.

3. Two points have been raised in this application which require determination by this Court. The first is that the order dated 23rd Nov. 1976, passed by the trial Court being an interlocutory order,