ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.
K. Raja Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Revision Case No. 185 of 2022
Decided On : 11-03-2022
Indian Evidence Act - Section 45 - Disputed Document Examination
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, facing prosecution for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, filed a petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send a disputed cheque for examination by an expert. The trial court dismissed the petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order passed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act is an interlocutory order and not subject to revision under Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the Criminal Revision Case filed by the petitioner against the dismissal of the petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the precedent that an order passed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act is a pure and simple interlocutory order, and revision is not maintainable under Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed as not maintainable.
JUDGMENT
Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. - aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25.03.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1173 of 2020 in C.C.No.645 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dhone, whereby the petition filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence act to send the disputed document for examination by expert was dismissed, the present Criminal Revision Case is preferred.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The revision petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.645 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dhone. He has been facing prosecution in the said case for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act. He has filed petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence act before the trial Court to send Ex.P1, which is the cheque, to the expert for examination to compare the signature on it with the admitted signatures of the petitioner on Ex.P5.
4. The said petition was dismissed by the trial Court by the impugned order. Therefore, aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is preferred.
5. This Criminal Revision Case can be disposed of on the ground of its maintainability.
6. It is now well settled law that an order passed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence act is an interlocutory order. It is not a final order which would have the effect of terminating the proceedings of the main case once for all and it is also not an intermediate order against revision under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C is maintainable. It is a pure and simple interlocutory order. So, it attracts bar under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C which bars revision against an interlocutory order. In fact, this Court in the case of Goli Satyanarayana Reddy Vs. G. Mahesh and Ors 2020(1) aLD (Crl.) 860 (aP) = 2020(1) aLT (Crl.) 323 (a.P.) held that an order passed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence act is a pure and simple interlocutory order against which revision is not maintainable in view of the bar under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C.
7. Therefore, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as not maintainable.
8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Criminal Revision Case, shall stand closed.
AI
An order passed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act is considered an interlocutory order and is not subject to revision under Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C.
The court clarified that an order allowing expert opinion under Section 45 of the Evidence Act is an intermediate order affecting rights, not merely interlocutory, and the court cannot collect eviden....
The drawer of a cheque authorizes the holder to fill-up the other entries, and the penal provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would be attracted if the cheque is otherwise vali....
A belated plea for examining the writing in a disputed cheque cannot be entertained at the revisional stage, especially when it was not the plea before the trial court.
An order dismissing an application for additional evidence is an interlocutory order and not subject to revision under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Timely action is crucial in invoking evidential rights under the Indian Evidence Act to avoid prejudice in legal proceedings.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.