TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1562X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Apex Court in Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam [ 2009 (3) TMI 1086 - SUPREME COURT ], the order passed on an application filed under Section 45 of Evidence Act is interlocutory in nature and against such an order, no revision is maintainable. The orders under challenge are only interlocutory in nature, as they are orders passed on an application filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act and they would not terminate or culminate the entire proceedings, if the same are allowed to sustain - the criminal revision cases are not maintainable in view of the bar under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. - criminal revision cases are dismissed. - Criminal Revision Case Nos. 651 and 652 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 25-10-2017 - M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rst time in Mohan Lal Magan Lal Thacker v. State of Gujarat AIR 1968 SC 733 , the Supreme Court had an occasion to decide whether the order is interlocutory order or not and held as follows: The question as to whether a judgment or an order is final or not has been the subject matter of a number of decisions; yet no single general test for finality has so far been laid down. The reason probably is that a judgment or order may be final for one purpose and interlocutory for another or final as to part and interlocutory as to part. The meaning of the two words final and interlocutory has, therefore, to be considered separately in relation to the particular purpose for which it is required. However, generally speaking, a judgment or o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inate or culminate the entire proceedings, is a determining factor to entertain a revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. But, here, the order under challenge is an order passed on an application filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, the same would not culminate the entire proceedings. Therefore, applying the tests laid down by the Apex Court referred above, it can safely be concluded without any hesitation that the order under challenge is only an interlocutory order in nature. 6. An identical question came up before the Apex Court in Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam 2009 CriLJ 2247 , wherein the Apex Court in paragraph 4 held as follows: 4. Secondly, what was not realized was that the order passed by the Trial Court refusing to call t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me Court had an occasion to decide the similar subject and held as follows: Therefore, when Section 397(2) prohibits interference in respect of interlocutory orders, Section 482, cannot be availed of to achieve same objective. In other words, since Section 397(2) prohibits interference with interlocutory orders, it would not be permissible to resort to Section 482. To set aside an interlocutory order prohibition in Section 397 will govern Section 482 thereof. In the present case, although, appellants might have an entitlement (not a right) to file a revision petition in High Court but that entitlement can be taken away and in any event, High Court is under no obligation to entertain a revision petition - such a petition can be rejected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supra), no revision is maintainable against interlocutory order, in view of bar under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. 10. Therefore, by following the law declared by the Apex Court, I hold that the orders under challenge are only interlocutory in nature, as they are orders passed on an application filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act and they would not terminate or culminate the entire proceedings, if the same are allowed to sustain. Therefore, on this ground alone, the criminal revision cases are not maintainable in view of the bar under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. 11. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court may compare admitted signatures with disputed signatures by exercising power under Section 73 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
