Interlocutory order doctrine under the Special Courts Act: framing of charge is not appealable as of right.

Under section 11(1) of the Special Courts Act, 1979, an order framing charge was treated as an interlocutory order because it forms part of the trial process and does not finally terminate the proceedings or determine the parties' rights. The majority held that the expression "interlocutory order" must be read in its ordinary sense, the non obstante clause prevents enlargement of appeal rights by reference to the Criminal Procedure Code, and appeals from charge-framing orders would frustrate the Act's object of speedy disposal. The dissent considered such an order to substantially affect the accused's liberty and rights, and therefore not interlocutory.

---

---

Issues: Whether an order framing charge by the Special Court under the Special Courts Act, 1979 was an interlocutory order within section 11(1), so as to bar an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Analysis: The majority construed section 11(1) in its natural meaning and held that the non obstante clause excluded reliance on the Criminal Procedure Code for enlarging the appeal right. An order framing charge was treated as part of the trial process under the warrant-case procedure, and as not finally determining the rights of the parties or terminating the proceedings. The Court held that the expression "interlocutory order" in section 11(1) was used in its ordinary sense, wide enough to include such an order, and that the statutory object of speedy disposal would be defeated if appeals lay from framing of charge orders. The dissent held that an order framing charge substantially affects the accused's rights, is not merely interlocutory, and is appealable as of right.

Conclusion: The order framing charge was held to be interlocutory and the appeal was held not maintainable.

Dissenting Opinion: Shinghal J. held that the order framing charge was not interlocutory because it finally rejected the accused's claim to discharge at that stage and substantially affected liberty. The appeal was therefore maintainable in his view.

Ratio Decidendi: Under section 11(1) of the Special Courts Act, 1979, an order that does not finally terminate the proceedings or determine the rights of the parties, including an order framing charge, is an interlocutory order and is not appealable as of right.

---