Age : 44 Years vs Kailash on 29 July, 2011

                                                             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 :::