B AJAYAKHOSH Vs. K K SAHADEVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The complaint was filed as early as in 2004. The matter is now at the stage of evidence. The petitioner filed an application to forward the cheque to the expert for opinion. The application was opposed. The learned Magistrate was thus called upon to exercise his discretion under Section 254(2) Cr.P.C. It is by now trite that the discretion under Sect 254(2) Cr.P.C. has to be exercised judicially bearing in mind all the relevant inputs. It is the duty of the Magistrate to ensure that he does not exercise his discretion merely for the purpose of contributing to the delay for the disposal. Therefore the learned Magistrate must have considered the request carefully.

(2.) The notice of demand was not replied to. The dishonour was not on the ground that the signatures vary. There is no dispute that the cheque is drawn on a cheque leaf issued to the petitioner by his bank to operate his account. The learned Magistrate also appears to have compared the admitted signatures with the signature in the cheque also.

(3.) The impugned order is an interlocutory order and not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of this Court in view of the bar under Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. The law frowns upon challenge against interlocutory orders and thus retardation of the progress of the trial in prosecutions. The short question that I am called upon to consider is whether the extra ordinary inherent powers are liable to be invoked to interfere with the impugned order. I do not come across any circumstance which would justify such invocation of the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction.