Supreme Court of India

V.C. Shukla v State through CBI

AIR 1980 SC 962; 1980 SCR (2) 38019802 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
The Special Court constituted under the Special Courts Act, 1979 framed charges against the appellant. He appealed to the Supreme Court under S.11(1) of the Act, which gave an appeal from any judgment, sentence or order "not being interlocutory order".
Issue
Whether an order of the Special Court framing a charge is an interlocutory order against which no appeal lies under S.11 of the Special Courts Act, 1979.
Held
An order framing a charge is an interlocutory order, so no appeal lay under S.11. The Court observed that framing a charge is a serious matter for the accused, and that the judge must apply his judicial mind to the materials and conclude that a prima facie case is made out before framing charges.
Principle
An order framing a charge is interlocutory, but it must follow a judicial application of mind to whether a prima facie case is made out.
Cite this

Facts

  • The Special Court constituted under the Special Courts Act, 1979 framed charges against the appellant. He appealed to the Supreme Court under S.11(1) of the Act, which gave an appeal from any judgment, sentence or order "not being interlocutory order".

Issue

  1. Whether an order of the Special Court framing a charge is an interlocutory order against which no appeal lies under S.11 of the Special Courts Act, 1979.

Held

  • An order framing a charge is an interlocutory order, so no appeal lay under S.11. The Court observed that framing a charge is a serious matter for the accused, and that the judge must apply his judicial mind to the materials and conclude that a prima facie case is made out before framing charges.

Ratio decidendi

The term "interlocutory order" in S.11 of the Special Courts Act, 1979 covers orders that do not finally decide the rights of the parties. An order framing charges does not terminate the proceedings, so it is interlocutory and not appealable under S.11, though the judge framing it must apply his mind to the material.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

  • Framing of charge: Cite for the standard that the judge must apply his mind and find a prima facie case (S.250, S.251 BNSS; S.227, S.228 CrPC).
  • Revision and appeal: Useful on the interlocutory nature of a charge order.
  • Correction (2026-10-21): An earlier version of this file gave the citation (1980) 2 SCC 665 and described a holding on vague charges. (1980) 2 SCC 665 is a different decision, V.C. Shukla v State (Delhi Administration), on the validity of the Special Courts Act declaration, and neither decision lays down that holding. This file now describes the decision of 7 December 1979 on the interlocutory character of a charge order.

Cite this

Citation

V.C. Shukla v State through CBI AIR 1980 SC 962; 1980 SCR (2) 380

Reported: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/849843/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.