VANIYAKANDI LAKSHMANAN Vs. R VASUDEVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The cheque is for an amount of Rs. 5 Lakhs. It is contended that the petitioner/accused and the respondent/ complainant are landlord and tenant. The accused had raised a contention even in the reply to the notice of demand that the liability had been discharged and the complainant had issued a voucher. The contention was that the amount had been paid on receipt of the notice of demand under a voucher. The accused stuck to that contention throughout the trial. He filed an application to forward the cheque to an expert for examination. The learned Magistrate sent the cheque to a private expert. Her report has been secured. The report is against the petitioner.

(2.) When the adverse report was received, the petitioner filed another application to send the said cheque to another expert for opinion. He further prayed that some other admitted contemporaneous signatures may also be forwarded to the expert for opinion. The learned Magistrate, by the impugned order, rejected the said prayer and dismissed the application. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by that order, a copy of which is produced as Annex.A6.

(3.) The impugned order is an interlocutory order. The law frowns upon attempts to challenge interlocutory orders during the pendency of the trial. The disapproval of the law against such attempt to challenge interim orders is very evident from the provisions of Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. Normally a person aggrieved by an interlocutory order passed by the Court will certainly have to wait till the proceedings are over and must wait to challenge that order along with the final order that is to be passed in the proceedings.