1979 (12) TMI 159 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Order on Appealability of Interlocutory Orders

V.C. SHUKLA Versus STATE THRU C.B.I.

V.C. SHUKLA Versus STATE THRU C.B.I. - 1980 AIR 962, 1980 (2) SCR 380, 1980 (0) Suppl. SCC 92 Issues Involved:1. Whether the order framing charges is an interlocutory order.2. The applicability of Section 11(1) of the Special Courts Act, 1979.3. The scope and interpretation of the term 'interlocutory order' under the Special Courts Act, 1979.4. The impact of the non obstante clause in Section 11(1) of the Special Courts Act, 1979.5. The right to appeal under Section 11 of the Special Courts Act, 1979.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the order framing charges is an interlocutory order:The primary issue is whether the order framing charges against the appellant under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, is an interlocutory order. The Court examined various precedents and interpretations of the term 'interlocutory order.' It concluded that an interlocutory order is one that does not decide the rights of the parties but only one aspect of the suit or trial. The order framing charges does not terminate the proceedings but allows the trial to continue, making it an interlocutory order.2. The applicability of Section 11(1) of the Special Courts Act, 1979:Section 11(1) of the Special Courts Act, 1979, provides that an appeal shall lie as of right from any judgment, sentence, or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court to the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized that the term 'interlocutory order' in Section 11(1) must be interpreted in its natural sense and not in a special or wider sense as used in Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. The scope and interpretation of the term 'interlocutory order' under the Special Courts Act, 1979:The Court analyzed the term 'interlocutory order' by referring to various legal dictionaries and precedents. It concluded that an interlocutory order is one that does not terminate the proceedings or finally decide the rights of the parties. The Court held that the order framing charges is an interlocutory order as it does not conclude the trial but allows it to continue.4. The impact of the non obstante clause in Section 11(1) of the Special Courts Act, 1979:The non obstante clause in Section 11(1) of the Act excludes the application of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, including Section 397(2), which bars appeals against interlocutory orders. The Court held that the non obstante clause does not change the meaning of 'interlocutory order' and that the term should be interpreted in its natural sense. The clause aims to ensure the quickest dispatch and expeditious disposal of cases by preventing delays that could arise from appeals against interlocutory orders.5. The right to appeal under Section 11 of the Special Courts Act, 1979:The Court emphasized that the right to appeal under Section 11 of the Act is limited to judgments, sentences, or orders that are not interlocutory. Since the order framing charges is an interlocutory order, no appeal lies against it under Section 11. The Court also noted that the Act provides sufficient safeguards for the accused, including the right to appeal against final orders and the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the preliminary objection raised by the Solicitor General and dismissed the appeal as being not maintainable. The Court concluded that the order framing charges is an interlocutory order and, therefore, not appealable under Section 11(1) of the Special Courts Act, 1979. The interpretation of 'interlocutory order' must be in its natural sense, and the non obstante clause in Section 11(1) does not alter this interpretation.