Mixed writ and criminal jurisdiction barred intra-court appeal where quashing petitions invoked both constitutional and inherent powers.

Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not bar consideration of a request for continuation of interim protection, because such a request was not an attempt to alter the final order. Where petitions invoked both Section 482 CrPC and Articles 226 and 227 in proceedings seeking quashing of PMLA-related proceedings and summons, the Single Judge's order was treated as one passed in mixed criminal and writ jurisdiction. In that situation, the jurisdictions could not be separated for the purpose of intra-court appeal, so no appeal lay under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 and the appeals were not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the continuation of interim relief could be declined on the ground of Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) Whether the order passed by the Single Judge was amenable to appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 in view of the invocation of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 along with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the continuation of interim relief could be declined on the ground of Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The prayer made before the Single Judge was only for continuation of interim relief that had operated during the writ proceedings. Section 362 bars alteration of a judgment except for clerical or arithmetical correction, but the request for continuation of interim protection was not an attempt to alter the final order in that sense. The provision therefore did not justify refusal to consider the request.

Conclusion: The bar under Section 362 did not preclude consideration of the request for continuation of interim relief.

Issue (ii): Whether the order passed by the Single Judge was amenable to appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 in view of the invocation of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 along with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The petitions sought quashing of proceedings arising from registration of an offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the consequential summons. The pleadings and the prayer disclosed invocation of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in addition to the constitutional jurisdiction. The Single Judge also recorded that the order had been passed under Section 482 as well. Where the criminal revisional jurisdiction and writ jurisdiction are both invoked and exercised, the two cannot be separated for the purpose of appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961.

Conclusion: The order was not appealable under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 and the appeals were not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed because the impugned order was treated as having been passed in mixed exercise of writ and criminal jurisdiction, leaving no maintainable intra-court appeal under the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961.

Ratio Decidendi: When a Single Judge passes an order in exercise of both writ jurisdiction and Section 482 jurisdiction, an appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 is not maintainable, because the two jurisdictions are inseparable for that purpose.

---