IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.revision No. 35 of 2007. Judgment reserved on: 5.9.2008 Date of decision: 8.9.2008 Udi Ram …….Petitioner Vs. Dhani Ram …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. B.N. Mehta, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. B.M. Chauhan, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge. This judgment shall dispose of order dated 16.3.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Theog in Case No.185/1 of 2005. 2. The facts in brief are that respondent had filed complaint against petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882, the details of the complaint are not necessary in view of the limited question involved in the case. The petitioner filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. read with Sections 73, 74 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending documents to the handwriting expert for comparison of signatures on the receipts which were Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes …2… allegedly issued by complainant. The application was dismissed by learned Judicial Magistrate on 16.3.2007. The order dated 16.3.2007 has been assailed by petitioner by way of revision petition. 3. Heard and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate has erred in rejecting the request of the petitioner for sending the receipts to handwriting expert to give opinion whether the receipts in question were issued by respondent. He has submitted that the petitioner has taken the defence that in view of receipts issued by the respondent, no case under Section 138 of the Act is made out against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that learned Judicial Magistrate has not only dismissed the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. wrongly but he has erred in exercising the jurisdiction properly. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that learned Judicial Magistrate has rightly dismissed the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. of the petitioner. In addition to this, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the revision filed by petitioner is not maintainable in view of the fact that order dated 16.3.2007 is interlocutory order. 4. In Dawarka Dass vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1980 CRI.L.J. 101, the facts were that an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed for recalling the prosecution witnesses who had been examined on 14.1.1980. This prayer was not accepted by the trial Court which was assailed in the High Court. On those facts, it was held that the provision of Section 397 of the Code cannot be invoked in that case. The order which was sought to be challenged …3… was an interlocutory passed by the Magistrate during the course of the trial and such order is not revisable under Section 397(2) of the Code. In the present case also, the learned Judicial Magistrate has dismissed the application of the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. which has been assailed by the petitioner by way of revision in this Court. The order dated 16.3.2007 being interlocutory, therefore, revision against the order dated 16.3.2007 is not maintainable and accordingly dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the revision petition of the petitioner against the order dated 16.3.2007 has been dismissed on maintainability and not on merits. ( Kuldip Singh ) Judge. September 8, 2008 (sks) …4…