Interlocutory order test in criminal revision: refusal of handwriting examination on defence documents can be revisable.

An order refusing handwriting examination of a cheque and related agreement was held not to be merely interlocutory because it conclusively affected a subordinate matter integral to the accused's defence. A request for expert opinion on disputed documents was a step in aid of defence, and denial of that request substantially prejudiced the accused's right to defend the complaint. On that basis, revision under Section 397 CrPC was maintainable, the contrary view on maintainability was set aside, and the revision was directed to be decided on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order refusing to send the cheque and related document for handwriting examination was an interlocutory order so as to bar revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether refusal of expert examination adversely affected the accused's right to defence.

Analysis: An order is not interlocutory merely because it does not finally decide the complaint if it conclusively determines a subordinate matter affecting the defence. The refusal to refer the cheque and agreement for expert opinion went to the accused's ability to establish his defence, and such a request was a step in aid of defence. An order declining that request substantially affected the accused's rights and could not be treated as a purely interim or procedural order barred from revisional scrutiny.

Conclusion: The order was not interlocutory, the revision was maintainable, and the order holding it non-maintainable was set aside with a direction to decide the revision on merits.

---