https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294449 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. en-us Wed, 25 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Apr 2021 08:04:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294449 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 25 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294449