Interlocutory order bar under Section 397(2) CrPC: revision not maintainable against refusal to send cheques for handwriting expert review.

An order refusing to refer disputed cheques for examination by a handwriting expert during trial was treated as interlocutory because it did not determine the main controversy or terminate the criminal proceedings. Applying the settled test, revision lies only against a final or intermediate order that, if set aside, would culminate the case; an evidentiary order of this kind therefore falls within the bar in Section 397(2) CrPC. The request to compare signatures under Section 73 of the Evidence Act remained subject to the trial court's discretion on proper materials and admissibility. The criminal revisions were consequently held not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order refusing reference of the disputed cheques to a handwriting expert under Section 45 of the Evidence Act was an interlocutory order and, if so, whether revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was maintainable.

Analysis: An order is interlocutory when its continuance would not terminate the proceedings and its reversal would not by itself bring the criminal case to an end. The impugned order concerned an evidentiary request made during trial and did not decide the main controversy in the complaint. Applying the settled test that revision lies only against final or intermediate orders that, if set aside, would culminate the proceedings, such an order falls within the prohibition contained in Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The request to compare signatures under Section 73 of the Evidence Act was left to the trial court's discretion on proper materials and admissibility.

Conclusion: The order was interlocutory in nature and the criminal revisions were not maintainable; the challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A revision is barred under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against an interlocutory order that does not culminate the criminal proceedings, including an order passed on an evidentiary application during trial.

---