An implied order of discharge in criminal proceedings is revisable, despite the absence of an express discharge order.

1. These revisions, one by the State and the other by the complainant, are directed against an order passed on 10-4-1980, by the Sessions Judge, Srinagar. The order reads thus : -
"After the opening address, it was found that a prima facie case under S.304/504/447 R.P.C. is made out against the accused Ab. Rahim Rather. The learned P. P. in his opening address conceded that it was not a case under S.302 R.P.C. but prima facie, a case under S.304 R.P.C. was made out against this accused. As against the accused Abdul Ahad Khan a prima facie case under S.504 R.P.C. was made out. The accused Abdul Rahim Rather was, therefore, charged under S.304/504/447 R.P.C. and the accused Abdul Ahad Khan was charged under S.504 R.P.C. The contents of the charges were read out to the accused persons. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. So the P. P. should produce evidence in the case now. Put up the case on 28, 29 and 30th April, 1980, respectively.
Sd/- Judge."

2. For the accused a preliminary objection was taken in regard to the maintainability of these revisions on the ground that no revision is competent against an interlocutory order. The argument of the learned counsel for the accused is that the impugned order is in the nature of an interlocutory order, being an order framing the charge, which has been passed at the intermediate stages of the proceedings as a step towards the final determination of the guilt of the accused. For this, he relied upon the provisions of the newly added cl.(4 - a) of S.435 CrPC as also on the decisions reported in V. C. Shukla v. State , 1980 CriLJ 690 (SC) and Manohar Nath v. State of Jammu and Kashmir , 1980 CriLJ 292 : AIR 1980 NOC 72 (J and K) (FB) : -
2 - A. S.435(4 - A), CrPC provides :
"The powers of revision conferred by this Section shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order, passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceedings."

3. In the case of Manohar Nath (supra), a Full Bench of this court has held that an "interlocutory order" is one which is passed at some intermediate stage of a proceeding to advance the cause of justice for the final determination of the rights between the parties. In the cage of V. C. Shukla, the Supreme Court has specifically observed that an order framing the charge is an interlocutory order. It necessarily follows that if the impugned order is an order framing the charge then no revision would lie. The argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist, however, is that, in effect and substance, the impugned order is an order discharging the accused Abdul Rahim Rather, of the offence under S.302, R.P.C. and so viewed, it is a revisable order. The argument has enough substance in it. The police submitted a charge - sheet complaining that the accused Abdul Rahim Rather had committed an offence under S.302/447, R.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge framed a charge against him under S.304/504/447, R.P.C. Thus he impliedly discharged the accused Abdul Rahim Rather under S.302, R.P.C. The question is whether an implied order of discharge is contemplated by S.268 of the CrPC I say so, because the learned counsel for the accused contended that newly inserted S.268, CrPC contemplates an express order of discharge only. S.268, CrPC reads thus :
"If upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding agai