https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294453 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. en-us Mon, 30 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Nov 2024 14:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294453 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 30 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294453