9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 724X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iance has been placed on the verdict of this Court in case titled as Ravi Chopra Vs. State & Another 2008 (102) DRJ 147 in support of the contentions of the respondent. 4. The complaint case No. 6478/14 had been filed by the complainant thereof i.e. the respondent in the present petition under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 in which an application filed by the accused therein i.e. the petitioner herein seeking to send the cheque in question for examination by the hand writing expert was declined vide order dated 05.03.2018, which order was upheld by the learned ASJ (Special Fast Track Court), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi vide order dated 03.10.2015 observing to the effect that the dismissal of the application of the petitioner was only an interlocutory order which could not be assailed by way of the revision petition u/S 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as no valuable rights of the parties had been decided vide the said impugned order and the revision petition was held to be not maintainable. 5. The complainant Mukesh Gupta i.e. the respondent to the present petition has contended through the complaint that the accused Bijender Singh i.e. the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... surety of Dal Chand and a letter issued by Vijender was obtained i.e. Ex.CW1/A i.e. the agreement related to the sale of the property. 8. Vide the impugned order dated 05.03.2015 of the learned MM (NI Act)-03/Dwarka in CC No. 6478/14 declined the prayer made by the petitioner herein seeking that the cheque in question given to the respondent be sent for an opinion to the hand writing expert, it having been held that it has been held in several cases that where signatures on a cheque are admitted by drawer, the payee gets implied authority to fill the particulars of the cheque in terms of Section 20 N.I. Act and the core issue in dispute between the parties was in relation to the agreement pertaining to sale of the property on the one hand and also issuance of the present cheque as security of the sale consideration to the complainant. The learned Trial Court thus observed to the effect : - "sending (to)(?) the cheque in question for opinion of handwriting expert would not render any help in deciding the above core issue particularly when the accused is not in a position to say whether the signatures appearing on the above agreement Ex.CW1/A are his or not. At this stage, it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 of the third edition of Halsbury‟s Laws of England at page 742, however, it has been stated in para 1606: ... a Judgment or order may be final for one purpose and interlocutory for another, or final as to part and interlocutory as to particle The meaning of two words must therefore be considered separately in relation to the particular purpose for which it is required. In para 1607 it is said: In general a Judgment or order which determines the principal matter in question is termed "final". In para 1608 at pages 744 and 745 we find the words: An order which does not deal with the final rights of the parties, but either (1) is made before Judgment and gives no final decision on the matters in dispute, but is merely on a matter of procedure, or (2) is made after Judgment and merely directs how the declarations of right already given in the final judgment are to be worked out, is termed "interlocutory". An interlocutory order, though not conclusive of the main dispute, may be conclusive as to the subordinate matter with which it deals." 12. The verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Amar Nath and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr." AIR 1977 SC 2185 observed to the effec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ma Finance Corporation Vs. Lilly Joseph" 2009(2) KCCR 1271 is in facts similar to the kind of the instant case wherein it makes reference to the verdict of the Apex Court in "Mrs. Kalyani Baskar Vs. Mrs. M.S. Sampoornam 2007 STPL 3772 wherein the Apex Court, with reference to Section 243, Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) held that accused has a right statutorily conferred by law to lay his specific defence and in furtherance of the same, if he were to make a request to the trial Court to refer any document for examination by an expert for his opinion, that is one step in aid of his defence." It was thus held in "Poornima Finance Corporation Vs. Lilly Joseph" (supra) that any order rejecting such request to the Trial Court to refer any document for examination by an expert for his opinion which is a step in aid of his defence amounts to the deprival of the right conferred on an accused under Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and amounts to denial of the opportunity and the right to defend and that such orders are revisable under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 by the Court conferred with the power on revision in the instant case. 14. The learned Trial Court vide orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
