Important Point—An expert opinion as to determine age of writing of ink can be possible and to admit is relevant.

1. The petitioner/accused maintained the revision impugning the dismissal order of the learned Magistrate dated 26.11.2016 in Crl. M.P. No. 276 of 2016 in C.C. No. 485 of 2013, a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, during trial sought for sending under Section 45 of the Evidence Act (for short ‘the Act’) Exs.P1 and P2, the so called cheques to the expert to determine the age of the ink.

2. It is based on the defence that the cheques were given in the year 2007 and those were time barred for not encashed and presented for encashment within six months therefrom and those were presented by altering or tampering the dates making as if given on the respective date and month of the year 2012, after more than 6 years and thereby the documents are to be send to the handwriting expert for comparison and determination of age of the writings. The same was since opposed on various grounds of the same is a false defence plea and an afterthought and no purpose be served having not disputed the signatures and cheques routed from his account and nothing to rebut.

3. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

4. Undisputedly from the hearing of the matter at length Exs.D1 and D2 subject to objection if any, on behalf of the accused in the course of trial were exhibited, which are the so called Xerox copy to the originals of Exs.P1 and P2 prior to the so called cheques showing those werein fact given in the year 2007 and that demonstrated the same were tampered in the year making as 2012. In fact, that is also when required to be compared if at all of Exs.D1 and D2 are for the same documents of Exs.P1 and P2 by expert, it is beyond the scope of the prayer in the present petition before the lower Court covered by the impugned order even for this Court to sit in revision against, irrespective of Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act during trial or enquiry enabling the Court with absolute power of comparison and for that even to solicit the expert opinion to assist the Court by invoking Section 45 of the Act by the Court in exercise of its power under Section 73 of the Act, apart from the High Court in deciding the revision even shown not within the scope of Section 397 Cr.P.C. to entertain can consider and decide the same under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by exercising the inherent power which inheres in the High Court from its very constitution as also held by this Court in Sun Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Mumbai v. State of Telangana and another, 2016 (2) ALT (Crl.) 165 by referring to several expressions of the Apex Court including of the Constitution Benches, particularly of Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, 1977 (4) SCC 551.

5. Thus, the revision is maintainable from the order is not interlocutory in nature and even otherwise, this Court under Sections 482 and 483 Cr.P.C. can entertain the proceeding if at all shown outside the purview of Section 397 Cr.P.C., apart from under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is in fact the settled law from the expressions of the Apex Court referred in Sun Pharma (supra) that merely because it is an order arisen out of an interlocutory application, it cannot be treated as interlocutory in nature once it effects the rights of the parties to the lis. However, once revision lies, the powers of revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. are different from the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

6. Once that is the principle and scope of law on power of the Court and when these documents are to be decided by an expert as to the tampering and determination of the ink and that is the valuable right of accused to establish by defence evidence and once he wants to do so as held by this Court in M/s. S.K. Health Care Formulations Pvt. Ltd v. M/s. Globe Glass Containers and another, 2016 (3) ALT (CRL.) 397 relying upon the expression of the Apex Court in T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidar, AIR 2008 SC 2010; apart from the other settled expression in M.S. Narayana Menon v.