Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sakamuri Avinash vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 8 January, 2020
Author: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Crl.R.C. No. 2795 of 2018
ORDER :
This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. questioning the Order passed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act by the trial Court.
2. The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.644 of 2015 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, Nellore. The said complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act on the ground that the cheque that was issued by him towards discharge of his legally enforceable debt was dishonoured. The accused took defence in the said case that the cheque was not filled by him and it was filled by the complainant. Therefore, to ascertain whether the cheque was filled by him or not, he has filed a petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the cheque to the expert for examination and to submit his opinion whether the cheque is in the hand writing of the petitioner or not. The said petition came to be dismissed by the impugned order.
3. Assailing the impugned order, the petitioner has filed this Petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. invoking the revisional power of this Court.
4. This Court entertained a doubt regarding the maintainability of this revision petition in view of the express 2 bar contained in Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. which bars revision against an interlocutory order.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1. None appeared for Respondent No.2.
6. Now the law is well settled that a revision under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. is maintainable only against a final order or intermediate order. Revision against a pure and simple interlocutory order, which do not decide anything finally is not maintainable, in view of the express bar contained in Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended before this Court that an order which substantially affects the right of an accused in relation to the trial of the case is to be considered as intermediate order against which revision is maintainable. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Amarnath v State of Haryana1. This Court recently in a batch of criminal revision cases in Crl.R.C.Nos.175, 2584, 2235 of 2018 and other matters dealt with the question whether an order under Section 45 of the Indian evidence Act is to be construed as an intermediate order or interlocutory order as per order dt. 30.12.2019. After discussing the issue at length held that the order passed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act is a pure and simple interlocutory order and it is 1 AIR 1997 SC 2185 = (1977) 4 SCC 137 = 1997 SCC (Cri) 585 = 1978 SCR (1) 222 3 not an intermediate order, attracting the bar under Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. In arriving at the conclusion, this Court relied on three Judge bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Girish Kumar Suneja v CBI2. Therefore, in view of the common order passed by this Court in Crl.R.C.No.175 of 2018 and batch, dt. 30.12.2020, wherein this Court has clearly held that an order under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act is an interlocutory order and not intermediate order, this Criminal Revision preferred against an order passed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act is not maintainable.
7. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as not maintainable.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petition, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Dt.08-01-2020 eha 2 (2017) 14 SCC 809 4 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Crl.R.C. No. 2795 of 2018 DT. 08-01-2020 eha