Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mansingh Gopusingh Pawar, filed a Criminal Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging an order dated 01/01/2011 passed by the learned trial Magistrate in Summary Criminal Case No. 803/2001. The impugned order rejected the petitioner's application (Exh. 64) to send the cheque in question for expert opinion regarding the age of ink on the said cheque. The trial court had noted that the technology to determine the age of ink is not available. However, the petitioner's counsel argued that such technology is available with the CBI at Delhi and offered to furnish the address of the Forensic Laboratory where such examination is done. The High Court observed that the impugned order was interlocutory in nature, passed during the progress of the trial, and not a final order disposing of the case. Therefore, the bar under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) against altering or reviewing a final order is not attracted. The court held that the trial court can pass, modify, or alter such interlocutory orders to ensure the progress of the trial. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside to the extent that it rejected the application on the ground of non-availability of technology. The petitioner was granted liberty to apply afresh before the trial Magistrate, provided he takes urgent steps to seek the expert opinion and gives full address particulars of the Forensic Laboratory. The petition was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Interlocutory Orders - Section 362 CrPC - Bar on Review - Interlocutory orders passed during progress of trial are not final orders and can be modified or altered to ensure progress of trial - Held that the bar under Section 362 CrPC is not attracted when such orders are passed in aid of trial (Paras 3-4). B) Evidence - Expert Opinion - Age of Ink - Technology to determine age of ink may be available with CBI at Delhi - Trial court rejected application on ground that technology is not available - Held that petitioner can apply afresh with full address of forensic laboratory where such examination is done (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's rejection of an application to send a cheque for expert opinion regarding age of ink is sustainable and whether the bar under Section 362 CrPC applies to such interlocutory orders.
Final Decision
The impugned order is set aside to the extent it rejected the application on the ground of non-availability of technology. The petitioner is at liberty to apply afresh before the trial Magistrate, who may pass an order if a fresh application is moved, provided the petitioner takes urgent steps and gives full address particulars of the Forensic Laboratory. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule made returnable forthwith.
Law Points
- Interlocutory orders can be modified or altered during trial
- Section 362 CrPC bar not attracted for interlocutory orders
- Technology to determine age of ink may be available with CBI Delhi
