Interlocutory orders on expert examination of documents are not revisable, as they do not end criminal proceedings.

An order on an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking expert examination of disputed documents is interlocutory, not intermediate, because it only assists the conduct of trial and does not end the criminal proceedings. Revision under Section 397(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is therefore barred by Section 397(2). Only orders which, if interfered with, would terminate the main proceedings qualify as intermediate orders; procedural orders in aid of evidence remain outside revisional jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether an order passed on an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, seeking sending of disputed documents to an expert, is an interlocutory order barred by Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or an intermediate order permitting revision under Section 397(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The revisional power under Section 397(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is expressly curtailed by Section 397(2), which bars revision against interlocutory orders. The concepts of final, interlocutory and intermediate orders were examined in the light of the settled principle that an intermediate order is one which, if reversed, would terminate the main proceedings. Orders taking cognizance and issuing process, or framing charge, are revisable because they may culminate the proceedings if set aside. By contrast, orders passed during trial which only facilitate evidence or assist the conduct of the case, and which do not finally decide the rights of the parties or bring the prosecution to an end, remain interlocutory in character. An order under Section 45 of the Evidence Act seeking expert examination of documents does not terminate the criminal case, and the proceedings continue irrespective of whether the request is allowed or rejected. The concept of intermediate order cannot be extended to every procedural order affecting a party's ability to prove its case, as that would defeat the legislative purpose behind Section 397(2).

Conclusion: The order under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is an interlocutory order and a revision against it is barred under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Ratio Decidendi: Only those orders passed at an interim stage which, if interfered with, would bring the main proceedings to an end, qualify as intermediate orders; procedural orders merely in aid of trial remain interlocutory and are not revisable under Section 397(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---