Handwriting examination of cheque refused where signatures were admitted and the order was interlocutory, leaving revision not maintainable.

A refusal to send a cheque for handwriting or ink examination was upheld where the accused had admitted the cheque and his signatures in the Section 313 CrPC statement. The Court held that no useful purpose would be served by expert examination in those circumstances. It further found that the challenged order was interlocutory, because setting it aside would not culminate in the criminal proceedings, and therefore the revision was not maintainable. The orders of the courts below were treated as in accordance with law, and interference was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference was warranted under the inherent jurisdiction against the refusal to send the cheque for handwriting/ink examination, particularly where the accused had admitted his signatures and the challenged order was interlocutory in nature.

Analysis: The petitioner sought examination of the cheque under the provisions governing expert evidence and summoning of material, but the Court noted that the accused had admitted issuance of the cheque and his signatures on it in the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. On that basis, the Court held that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the cheque to a handwriting expert. The Court further held that even if the revision challenge to the refusal order were accepted, the criminal proceedings would not culminate, so the impugned order was interlocutory and the revision was not maintainable. In these circumstances, the orders of the courts below were found to be in accordance with law.

Conclusion: Interference was declined and the petition was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The accused was not entitled to have the cheque sent for handwriting examination, and the challenge to the interlocutory refusal order failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A refusal to direct handwriting examination of a cheque is not fit for interference where the accused has admitted his signatures and the impugned order is interlocutory in nature, particularly when no termination of the proceedings would follow from reversal of that order.

---