The main legal point established in the judgment is the essentiality of evidence for the just decision of the case and the discretionary and mandatory authority of the Criminal Court under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Surinder Singh, J.:- The petitioner is a complainant in Complaint Case No. 95-1/2006 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He has preferred the instant petition challenging the order passed by learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Petition No.27 of 2007 decided on 2.2.2008 whereby the order of dismissal of the application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure moved by the accused-respondent was reversed by allowing the application.

2. In brief, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent is alleged to have issued the cheque on 10.4.2006 to the tune of Rs.30,000/-, which was dishonored, thus after sending the statutory notice, the amount was not paid by the accused-respondent, as such, the complainant filed the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent.

3. The petitioner led his evidence and the statement of the respondent was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 7.6.2007. The respondent opted to lead his defense but instead of examining any witness in defense, he moved an application on 14.9.2007 under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, on the ground that the petitioner had denied in his cross-examination having sent the Post Cards Mark A & B dated 11.6.2003 and 20.6.2003 to the accused wherein there is a reference of

the cheque number in question. The proof of the said letters was necessary for the just decision of the case, thus the handwriting and signatures of the petitioner were required to be taken and sent for the examination from the Handwriting Expert. This application was resisted and contested by the petitioner on the ground that no defense was produced by the accused despite taking several opportunities nor the list of DWs was filed. The application aforesaid was moved to delay the proceedings and the respondent had no right to make such a request.

4. After hearing the parties vide order dated 10.10.2007, the learned trial Magistrate declined therequest of the respondent on the ground that there was no need to call any Handwriting Expert for comparison being not material for the effective adjudication of the case.

5. The respondent assailed the aforesaid order before the learned Sessions Judge in a revision petition which according to the petitioner herein was not maintainable being an interlocutory order, but the learned Sessions Judge over-ruled this objection and held that revision petition was maintainable as it goes to the root of the matter. Further that the rules of procedure are made only to advance justice and not to thwart it, as such, he allowed the request of the respondent subject to cost of Rupees 1000/. It is this order which has been assailed in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that the findings arrived by the learned Sessions Judge are in-correct, thus unsustainable.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned Sessions Judge has wrongly held that the order on the application was not an interlocutory order and further that he over-looked the mandatory provisions of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, thus the impugned order is un-sustainable.

7. Contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and have carefully examined the case.

9. The first question staring at the face is whether the order passed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned trial Magistrate is an “interlocutory order” and not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction. My answer to it is in affirmative. The order passed by the court under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is an “interlocutory order” and revision against it is barred under Secti