MANSINGH Vs. KAILASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Aniruddha C. Jaltare, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S. S. Shingne, learned counsel for Respondent-sole.

(2.) Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties.

(3.) The petitioner questions the order dated 01/01/2011 passed below Exh. 64 in Summary Criminal Case No. 803/2001, whereby the learned trial Magistrate had rejected the application for sending the cheque in question for expert opinion regarding the age of ink on the said cheque. It is noted by the learned Magistrate that the technology to determine the age of ink is not available, while according to learned Advocate for the petitioner, such technology is available with CBI at Delhi and, he will furnish address of the Forensic Laboratory where such examination is done for determining the age of ink on the document in question. Be that as it may, learned advocate for the petitioner is aware of availability of such technology. He is at liberty to apply afresh before the learned trial Magistrate. During the pendency of the trial, when interim orders are passed which are of interlocutory nature or such orders which are passed during progress of the trial can not be termed as "final order disposing of case" and, therefore, there will be no prohibition for the Court to pass such interim or interlocutory orders which are in aid or for progress of the trial or proceeding pending. Hence the bar under Section 362 is not attracted when such interlocutory orders are passed, modified or altered to ensure progress of the trial or in aid thereof.