SABNA ENGINEERING AND ENTERPRISES Vs. POLAR INTERNATIONAL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Notice of demand was duly received and acknowledged. It evoked a reply to. In the reply, a contention was raised that the petitioner had occasion to give signed blank cheques as security to the complainant. No other specific contention was raised in relation to the cheque in question. Admittedly, there was no denial that the signature in the cheque was not that of the petitioner. In the course of the trial, the petitioner raised a contention that the signature in the cheque is not his. At the defence stage, he wanted the cheque to be sent to the expert for comparison. The learned Magistrate, by the impugned order (copy of which is produced as Annexure A) rejected the said prayer. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the said order. He has accordingly come before this court.

(2.) The impugned order is an interlocutory order and not a revisable one. That explains why the petitioner has come to this court with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Ordinarily and normally, the petitioner must wait to challenge the interlocutory order along with the final order to be passed in the prosecution, if such challenge be necessary at that stage. But, of course, in a case where the conscience of the court is satisfied that failure/miscarriage of justice would result if such an order is not permitted to be challenged earlier, powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C can certainly be invoked.

(3.) In the facts and circumstances of this case, I find no reason to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The theory that an unsigned blank cheque must also have been available with the complainant and the complainant, who had signed the blank cheques is making use of the the unsigned blank cheque of the petitioner after forging the petitioner's signature to stake such a false claim does not, at the moment, appear to be reasonable at all. However, I do not intend to express any final opinion on the merits of the contention. I need only observe that I am not persuaded to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to interfere with the impugned order at this interlocutory stage.