1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 153/2011
Mansingh s/o. Gopusingh Pawar
Age : 44 years, Occupation : Service,
Janta Vidyalaya, Singaon Jahagir,
Tahsil - Deulgaonraja, District : Buldhana. ...PETITIONER..
VERSUS
Kailash s/o Alasingh Chavan,
Age : 35 years, Occupation : Service,
R/o. Gotmara, Post : Karhala,
Taluka : Motala, District : Buldhana. ...RESPONDENT..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Aniruddha C. Jaltare, Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. S. S. Shingne, Advocate for Respondent-Sole
——————————————————————————————————————–
Coram: A.P. Bhangale, J
Dated : 29th July 2011
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. Heard Mr. Aniruddha C. Jaltare, learned counsel for the
Petitioner and Mr. S. S. Shingne, learned counsel for Respondent-sole.
2. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the
parties.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:34:35 :::
2
3. The petitioner questions the order dated 01/01/2011 passed
below Exh. 64 in Summary Criminal Case No. 803/2001, whereby the
learned trial Magistrate had rejected the application for sending the
cheque in question for expert opinion regarding the age of ink on the
said cheque. It is noted by the learned Magistrate that the technology to
determine the age of ink is not available, while according to learned
Advocate for the petitioner, such technology is available with CBI at
Delhi and, he will furnish address of the Forensic Laboratory where such
examination is done for determining the age of ink on the document in
question.
Be that as it may, learned advocate for the petitioner is
aware of availability of such technology. He is at liberty to apply afresh
before the learned trial Magistrate. During the pendency of the trial,
when interim orders are passed which are of interlocutory nature or such
orders which are passed during progress of the trial can not be termed
as “final order disposing of case” and, therefore, there will be no
prohibition for the Court to pass such interim or interlocutory orders
which are in aid or for progress of the trial or proceeding pending.
Hence the bar under Section 362 is not attracted when such
interlocutory orders are passed, modified or altered to ensure progress
of the trial or in aid thereof.
4. To that extent, the impugned order is not sustainable. The
learned trial Magistrate may pass an order if a fresh application is
moved by the petitioner to get the document in question examined by
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:34:35 :::
3
the expert for to determine the age of ink as desired by the petitioner.
Provided that, the petitioner shall take urgent steps to seek such an
opinion as early as possible and gives full address particulars of Forensic
Laboratory or technical institution where such examination is possible.
5. Petition is disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE
Punde
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:34:35 :::