There are three categories of orders that a court can pass-final, intermediate and interlocutory. There is no doubt that in respect of a final order, a court can exercise its revision jurisdiction-that is in respect of a final order of acquittal or conviction. There is equally no doubt that in respect of an interlocutory order, the court cannot exercise its revision jurisdiction. As far as an intermediate order is concerned, the court can exercise its revision jurisdiction since it is not an interlocutory order.
{Para 17}
21. The concept of an intermediate order was further elucidated in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0103/1977 : (1977) 4 SCC 551 by contradistinguishing a final order and an interlocutory order. This decision lays down the principle that an intermediate order is one which is interlocutory in nature but when reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings and thereby resulting in a final order. Two such intermediate orders immediately come to mind-an order taking cognizance of an offence and summoning an Accused and an order for framing charges. Prima facie these orders are interlocutory in nature, but when an order taking cognizance and summoning an Accused is reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings against that person resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Similarly, an order for framing of charges if reversed has the effect of discharging the Accused person and resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Therefore, an intermediate order is one which if passed in a certain way, the proceedings would terminate but if passed in another way, the proceedings would continue.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal No. 1137 of 2017
Girish Kumar Suneja Vs. C.B.I.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph and A.K. Sikri, JJ.
Author: Madan B. Lokur, J.
Decided On: 13.07.2017
