9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 1562 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - no contemporaneous signatures are available on any unauthenticated documents - Section 45 of the Evidence Act - HELD THAT - In view of the law declared by the Courts in the catena of judgments, it is clear that, if the order under challenge is allowed to sustain, would terminate 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. In view of the law declared by 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.
Issues:
1. Legality, propriety, and regularity of orders passed in Crl.M.P. No. 2382 of 2016 and Crl.M.P. No. 2383 of 2016 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge. 2. Nature of the order passed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. 3. Determining whether the orders are interlocutory or final. 4. Maintainability of revision cases under Section 397 Cr.P.C against interlocutory orders. 5. Comparison of admitted signatures with disputed signatures under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. Analysis: 1. The revision cases were filed to challenge the orders passed in Crl.M.P. No. 2382 of 2016 and Crl.M.P. No. 2383 of 2016 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge. The petitioners, accused in a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, sought to refer certain cheques to a handwriting expert for comparison. The trial court dismissed the petitions as no contemporaneous signatures were available on unauthenticated documents. 2. The impugned orders were passed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, which is considered interlocutory in nature and does not conclude the entire proceedings. The term "interlocutory order" is not explicitly defined in the Criminal Procedure Code but has been discussed in various judicial decisions, including the Supreme Court's judgment in "Mohan Lal Magan Lal Thacker v. State of Gujarat AIR 1968 SC 733." 3. The Apex Court in subsequent cases like "K.K. Patel v. State of Gujarat AIR 2000 SC 3346" and "Bhaskara Industries Limited v. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Limited (2001) 7 SCC 401" provided a test to determine if an order is interlocutory or final. An order that culminates or terminates the proceedings is considered final, while an order that does not conclude the proceedings is interlocutory. The orders in question were found to be interlocutory based on this test. 4. Referring to the law laid down in "Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam 2009 CriLJ 2247" and "Girish Kumar Suneja v. C.B.I. AIR 2017 SC 3620," it was established that no revision is maintainable against interlocutory orders under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. The judgments emphasized that the prohibition on interference with interlocutory orders extends to Section 482 as well, and the remedy lies in approaching the appropriate forum. 5. The Court addressed the contention of comparing admitted signatures with disputed signatures under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. It was clarified that the Court could exercise this power if necessary, and the petitioners were allowed to represent authenticated documents for comparison, subject to admissibility. The criminal revision cases were dismissed on the grounds of the orders being interlocutory in nature. By following the legal principles established by the Apex Court and analyzing the nature of the orders passed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, the Court concluded that the revision cases were not maintainable against interlocutory orders, ultimately dismissing the cases.
|
