ORDER
A.K. Awasthy, J.
1. Applicant/accused has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 9.1.2004 in Criminal Revision No. 23/2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Indore confirming the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore in Criminal Case No. 1262/2003 whereby the learned Trial Court has refused the permission to the applicant accused to adduce the further evidence in the defence.
2. Respondent/complainant has filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of he Cheque bearing No. 18379 for Rs. 3,40,000 alleged to have been given by the applicant on 13.2.2002 drawn on Indore Cloth Market Cooperative Bank Ltd., Sitlamata Branch, Indore. That the learned Trial Court has recorded the evidence of the complainant and the statement of the applicant accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. on 28.3.2003. Thereafter the case was fixed for the defence evidence on 3.5.2003. That on 26.12.2003 the accused has examined 3 witnesses in his defence and the accused has made the prayer to examine the handwriting expert to prove that the ink of the cheque bearing No. 18379 is very old and not of the year 2002. The application of the applicant for examining the handwriting expert to prove the age of the ink was rejected on 27.12.2003.
3. The applicant has filed the revision against the order dated 27.12.2003 wherein the prayer of the applicant to examine the handwriting expert to prove the age of the ink was rejected. The Revisional Court has confirmed the order of the learned Trial Court and dismissed the revision.
4. The applicant has filed the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. alleging that the order of the learned Trial Court declining the prayer for calling the handwriting expert is illegal and unwarranted by law and as such, the impugned order of the Trial Court should be set aside and the opportunity should be provided to the applicant to examine the handwriting expert.
5. The complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act about 2 years back. That after the filing of the complaint, the applicant accused has not made any attempt to get the cheque examined by the handwriting expert and get the report to prove the age of the ink on the cheque. The accused has not made any application before the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. for getting the cheque examined to prove the age of the ink. The applicant has examined 3 witnesses in defence. The applicant got several opportunities after 28.3.2003 to examine the defence witnesses. No explanation is given by the applicant/accused of not getting the cheque examined by the handwriting expert to prove the age of the ink. In view of the fact that the report of the hand writing expert about the age of the ink was not on record, the learned Trial Court has not committed any mistake in rejecting the prayer of the applicant to call the handwriting expert at the fag end of the trial. No reason exist whatsoever, to doubt the correctness of the order of the Court of revision by which the impugned order of the Trial Court was confirmed.
6. The inherent power is exercised for the limited purpose very sparingly where there is an apparent miscarriage of justice. The second revision is barred under Section 397(3) of the Cr.P.C. and the power of Section 482, Cr.P.C. is not exercised to circumvent the bar of second revision under Section 397(3) of the Cr.P.C. The Apex Court in case of Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47, and in case of Raj Kapoor v. State of Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 258, has held that High Court normally should not exercise its power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. against the interlocutory order on account of bar of Section 397, Cr.P.C. The following observation made in case of Madhu Limaye (supra) is relevant.
“Section 397(2) operates only in exercise of the revisional power of the High Court, of meaning thereby that the High Court will have no power of revision in relation to an interlocutory order. But in case the impugned order clearly brings about a situation which is an abuse of the process of the Court or for the purpose of securing the ends of justice interference by the High Court is absolutely necessary, then nothing contained in Section 397(2) can limit or affect the exercise of the inherent power by the High Court.”
7. In the circumstances of present case it will not be proper to direct the trial Court to examine the defence witness in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Petition is, hereby, dismissed.