https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304290 A repeated request for examination of a handwriting expert under Section 243(2) CrPC, after earlier applications for the same relief had already been rejected, was treated as interlocutory and not amenable to revision. The court noted that the cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, the bank manager supported that position, and the Magistrate's comparison of signatures under Section 73 of the Evidence Act showed no variation. In these circumstances, the later application was effectively a review of an earlier decision and was properly rejected as vexatious and dilatory, leaving the complaint proceedings to continue. en-us Wed, 11 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Sep 2022 19:07:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304290 A repeated request for examination of a handwriting expert under Section 243(2) CrPC, after earlier applications for the same relief had already been rejected, was treated as interlocutory and not amenable to revision. The court noted that the cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, the bank manager supported that position, and the Magistrate's comparison of signatures under Section 73 of the Evidence Act showed no variation. In these circumstances, the later application was effectively a review of an earlier decision and was properly rejected as vexatious and dilatory, leaving the complaint proceedings to continue. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 11 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304290