An order framing a charge is not a final order and is considered an interlocutory order for the purpose of the relevant statute; therefore, it is not subject to a statutory appeal, as the appellate provision is limited to final orders that conclude the proceedings.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

J U D G M E N T

1. These appeals, filed under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (“NIA Act”), challenge orders of Special Courts whereby Charges are framed against the appellants in different cases. A preliminary objection is raised by the Respondent/NIA that an appeal against an Order framing Charge is not maintainable under Section 21 of the NIA Act.

2. The submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that as per Section 21 of the NIA Act, an appeal is maintainable against every order other than an interlocutory order. It is already settled by the Supreme Court, that, an Order framing Charge is not an interlocutory order, but an intermediate order, thus, from a plain reading of the section, an appeal would be maintainable.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that a plain reading cannot be given to Section 21 as the same would not serve the purpose of the NIA Act. It should rather be interpreted in a manner which fulfils the purpose of the rest of the sections along with the Act, and, thus, a purposeful interpretation needs to be given.

4. Both parties have, broadly, referred to the same set of judgments of the Supreme Court, albeit, interpreting those in their own manner, which have been duly considered by us.

5. Section 21 of the NIA Act reads as follows:-

“21. Appeals — (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, an appeal shall lie from any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court to the High Court both on facts and on law.

(2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be heard by a bench of two Judges of the High Court and shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of admission of the appeal.

(3) Except as aforesaid, no appeal or revision shall lie to any court from any judgment, sentence or order including an interlocutory order of a Special Court.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3) of section 378 of the Code, an appeal shall lie to the High Court against an order of the Special Court granting or refusing bail.

(5) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of the judgment, sentence or order appealed from: Provided that the High Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of thirty days:

Provided further that no appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of period of ninety days.”

6. Section 21(1) permits an appeal from “any judgment, sentence or order not being an interlocutory order”. Under Sub-Section (3), it bars any other appeal or revision.

7. Let us first refer to the judgments relied upon by the parties. In “ Amar Nath and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. ”, (1977) 4 SCC 137 the Supreme Court, while considering challenge to an Order of framing Charge, held:

“(6)……It seems to us that the term “interlocutory order” in Section 397 (2) of the 1973 Code has been used in a restricted sense and not in any broad or artistic sense. It merely denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or the liabilities of the parties. Any order which substantially affects the right of the accused, or decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar a revision to the High Court against that order, because that would be against the very object which formed the basis for insertion of this particular provision in Section 397 of the 1973 Code. Thus, for instance, orders summoning witnesses, adjourning cases, passing orders for bail, calling for reports and such other steps in aid of the pending proceeding, may no doubt amount to interlocutory orders against which no revision would lie under Section