⚠ Section 403 applies to both — but not to every order

The words of section 403 are “its judgment or final order disposing of a case”. So the bar on alteration covers not only a judgment but also a final order — a discharge, an order accepting a final report, a dismissal of a complaint under section 226.

What it does not cover is an interlocutory order. An order adjourning a case, summoning a witness, or regulating the manner in which evidence is recorded may be varied as the case proceeds, because it does not dispose of anything.

That is why the classification of an order matters twice over: it decides whether the court that made it can revisit it, and it decides whether a revision lies against it.

📖 Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 137

Facts: An order summoning persons as accused was challenged in revision, and the State contended that the revisional jurisdiction was barred because the order was an interlocutory one. The Court was required to construe the expression “interlocutory order” in the provision barring revision.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the expression “interlocutory order” in the provision barring revision must be given a restricted meaning, and denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or liabilities of the parties. Orders summoning witnesses, adjourning cases, granting bail, calling for reports and similar steps passed during the pendency of a case are interlocutory in that sense. But an order which affects a substantial right of a party is not interlocutory merely because it is passed during the proceeding and does not conclude it. The Court held that the object of the bar is to prevent the delay caused by challenges to routine procedural steps, and that a construction which shut out challenges to orders determining important rights would go far beyond that object and would cause grave injustice.

Ratio: The bar on revising an interlocutory order is confined to orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not touch the important rights or liabilities of the parties. An order affecting a substantial right is not interlocutory merely because the case continues.

📖 Girish Kumar Suneja v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2017) 14 SCC 809

Facts: The Court was required to consider the maintainability of challenges to various orders passed during the progress of a trial, and to explain the categories into which orders of a criminal court fall for the purpose of the bar on revision.

Held: The Supreme Court restated the threefold classification which the decisions have established. An order may be final, disposing of the case or of the rights of the parties in it; it may be purely interlocutory, being of a procedural character and not touching those rights; or it may fall into a third, intermediate category — an order which is neither final nor purely interlocutory, being one which, had it been decided the other way, would have concluded the proceeding. The framing of a charge is the classic instance: framing it does not end the case, but an order of discharge would have. The Court held that an order in that intermediate category is not within the bar on revising interlocutory orders, so that a revision lies against it; while an order that is purely interlocutory remains within the bar, and the remedy, if any, is the inherent power of the High Court, to be exercised sparingly.

Ratio: Orders fall into three categories: final, purely interlocutory, and intermediate. An order which, decided the other way, would have concluded the proceeding is intermediate and not within the bar on revision.

⚠ The working test, and why the third category exists

The working test is the one the decisions supply: ask what would have happened if the order had been decided the other way. If the proceeding would have ended, the order is not purely interlocutory and revision lies.

Framing a charge does not end the case — but discharging the accused would have. Summoning an additional accused does not end the case — but refusing to do so leaves him out of it altogether.

Why the category is needed: the bar on revising interlocutory orders exists to stop a trial being fragmented by challenges to every procedural step on the way through the superior courts. Read literally, it would also shut out a challenge to an order that decides whether a person stands trial at all — which is not what it was for.

So “interlocutory” is read in its restricted sense: an order of a purely procedural kind, not every order that is not final.

The position stated shortly

1. A judgment is the final adjudication of a criminal case — the decision convicting or acquitting. An order is any other decision of a Criminal Court.

2. A judgment is governed by Chapter XXIX; an order by the provision under which it is made.

3. Section 393 prescribes what a judgment must contain — the points for determination, the decision and the reasons, the offence, the section and the punishment, or the acquittal and a direction to set at liberty. For orders, the requirement of reasons depends on the provision.

4. A judgment is pronounced in open Court under section 392, with the accused present or brought up. There is no equivalent formality for an order.

5. Section 403 bars alteration of a judgment or final order disposing of a case once signed, except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. An interlocutory order is not within it and may be varied as the case proceeds.

6. The remedy against a judgment is an appeal under Chapter XXXI. The remedy against an order is ordinarily a revision.

7. But section 438(2) bars revision against an interlocutory order, and “interlocutory” is read in its restricted sense: an order of a purely interim or procedural character not touching the important rights of the parties: Amar Nath.

8. Orders fall into three categories: final, purely interlocutory, and intermediate: Girish Kumar Suneja.

9. An intermediate order is one which, decided the other way, would have concluded the proceeding — the framing of a charge being the classic instance. Revision lies against it.

10. Where an order is purely interlocutory the residual remedy is the inherent power of the High Court under section 528, exercised sparingly.