9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1562X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 015 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, whereby the petition filed under Section 45 of Evidence Act to refer the cheque bearing No. 680012 dated 05.12.2013 and cheque bearing No. 906423 dated 04.12.2013 to the hand writing expert for comparison with the admitted and contemporaneous signatures and for his/her opinion. The petitioners are the accused in private complaint filed for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, in which they raised certain contentions disputing the signature on Ex. P.1, but the trial Court dismissed the petitions on the ground that no contemporaneous signatures are available on any unauthenticated documents. 2. The impugned order in both the petitions was passed in a peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty would determine the main dispute? 2. Was it made upon an application upon which the main dispute could have been decided? 3. Does the order as made determine the dispute? 4. If the order in question is reversed, would the action have to go on?" 4. Though the law in "Mohan Lal Magan Lal Thacker v. State of Gujarat" (referred supra) is reviewed in various judgments, the Apex Court laid down feasible test in "K.K. Patel v. State of Gujarat AIR 2000 SC 3346" and "Bhaskara Industries Limited v. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Limited (2001) 7 SCC 401", wherein the Apex Court laid down a feasible test as to whether an order is interlocutory or final. The only test is, if an order under challenge is allowed to sustain, it would culminate or termi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t also recorded a finding that the documents were not necessary. This order did not, in any manner, decide anything finally. Therefore, both the orders, i.e., one on the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for production of documents and other on the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the witness, were the orders of interlocutory nature, in which case, under Section 397(2), revision was clearly not maintainable. Under such circumstances, the learned Judge could not have interfered in his revisional jurisdiction. The impugned judgment is clearly incorrect in law and would have to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside. The appeals are allowed." 7. Therefore, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in "Sethuraman v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evision petition in High Court is taken away and thereby High Court is deprived of exercising its extraordinary discretionary power available under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. However, it does not mean that appellants have no remedy available to them - paragraph 10 of order dated 25.07.2014 does not prohibit appellants from approaching Supreme Court under Article 136 of Constitution. Therefore all that has happened is that forum for ventilating grievance of appellants has shifted from High Court to Supreme Court. Mere fact that Supreme Court could dismiss petition filed by appellants under Article 136 of Constitution without giving reasons does not necessarily lead to conclusion that reasons will not be given or that some equitable order wil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
