RAPALLE KRISHNA MURTHY Vs. UPPALLA NAGENDRAMMA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - These revision cases are preferred under sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (fort short "Cr.P.C.") questioning the legality, propriety and regularity of the orders dated 25.01.2017 passed in Crl.M.P. No.2382 of 2016 in C.C. No.41 of 2015 and Crl.M.P. No.2383 of 2016 in C.C. No.42 of 2015 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, whereby the petition filed under Section 45 of Evidence Act to refer the cheque bearing No.680012 dated 05.12.2013 and cheque bearing No.906423 dated 04.12.2013 to the hand writing expert for comparison with the admitted and contemporaneous signatures and for his/her opinion.

(2.) The petitioners are the accused in private complaint filed for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, in which they raised certain contentions disputing the signature on Ex.P.1, but the trial Court dismissed the petitions on the ground that no contemporaneous signatures are available on any unauthenticated documents.

(3.) The impugned order in both the petitions was passed in a petition filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, which is purely interlocutory in nature and if it is allowed to sustain, it would not culminate the entire proceedings. 4. But, in the entire Criminal Procedure Code, the word 'interlocutory order' is not defined anywhere. But, for the first time in "Mohan Lal Magan Lal Thacker v. State of Gujarat AIR 1968 SC 733 ", the Supreme Court had an occasion to decide whether the order is interlocutory order or not and held as follows: