K. RAJA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(APH)-2022-3-5
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on March 11,2022

K. Raja Kumar Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

GOLI SATYANARAYANA REDDY VS. G. MAHESH [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY,J. - (1.) Aggrieved by the impugned order dtd. 25/3/2021 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 Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the disputed document for examination by expert was dismissed, the present Criminal Revision Case is preferred. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 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 Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He has filed petition under Sec. 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. 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. This Criminal Revision Case can be disposed of on the ground of its maintainability. It is now well settled law that an order passed under Sec. 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 Sec. 397(1) Cr.P.C is maintainable. It is a pure and simple interlocutory order. So, it attracts bar under Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 397(2) Cr.P.C. Therefore, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as not maintainable. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Criminal Revision Case, shall stand closed. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.