IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1ST ASWINA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3555 of 2008() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05/09/2008 IN CRMP 786/2008 IN SC.1683/2005 of SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.14: ------------ KOYYADAN SAHADEVAN MASTER, S/O.APPU NAIR, AGED 49, KOCHAMBALLI VEEDU, CHAVASSERY AMSOM, ULIYIL. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SMT.K.M.RAMYA RESPONDENTS/FORMAL PARTY/COMPLAINANT: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA TO BE REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR, IRITTY POLICE STATION, THALASSERY. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3555 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of September 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is the 14th accused facing indictment in a prosecution under Section 302 I.P.C. The accused persons were allegedly members of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly, they had allegedly thrown explosive substance at the victims who had travelled in a jeep. Driver of the jeep lost control of the vehicle and the vehicle went over to a rubber plantation on the side of the road. As the victims were getting out of the vehicle, one more explosive substance/bomb was thrown at the victim resulting in injury to many. Two of the victims succumbed to the injuries. One of the passengers in the vehicle, allegedly a victim of the crime who was admitted to the hospital, while at the hospital allegedly lodged the F.I.S on the basis of which the crime was registered. 2. Investigation was completed. Final report was filed. Cognizance was taken. The case was committed to the court of Session. Charges were framed. Trial has commenced. Crl.M.C.No.3555/08 2 3. In the course of the trial, when PW1/the first informant was examined, a contention was raised that signature of PW1 appearing in the F.I.S and in the summons issued do not exactly tally and they were dissimilar. From this, the contention appears to have been raised that the F.I.S does not really contain the signature of PW1 and that some other person, a local political functionary (the alleged motive is political animosity) had signed the F.I.S. When the matter reached the defence stage, an application was filed that the F.I.S may be sent to the expert along with admitted signatures to examine the same and render an opinion on the authenticity of the said signature. The application was opposed. The learned Sessions Judge, by the impugned order, rejected the prayer to send the F.I.S to the expert. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. He prays that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the impugned order. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in detail. At this stage of the proceedings, I shall not hazard any authentic opinion on the genuineness of the signature appearing in the F.I.S. Notwithstanding the fact that the learned Sessions Crl.M.C.No.3555/08 3 Judge, in the impugned order, had made certain observations, the same should not be held to bind the learned Sessions Judge and he must also consider the challenge against the F.I.S in the light of the totality of circumstances before passing the judgment in the sessions case. 5. I take note of the fact that the impugned order is an interlocutory order. Law frowns upon challenge against interlocutory orders during the pendency of the proceedings before the court concerned. A person aggrieved by such an interlocutory order will certainly have to wait till the final order is passed in the proceedings and such interlocutory order has also to be challenged along with the final orders in a properly instituted appeal against the final order. In an exceptional case where the compelling demands of justice so persuade the court, this court certainly has jurisdictional competence to invoke Section 482 Cr.P.C to interfere with even an interlocutory order. But I am not satisfied that the petitioner must be given the option to challenge the impugned interlocutory order in this proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I am satisfied that it will only be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to challenge the Crl.M.C.No.3555/08 4 impugned order, if such challenge is necessary, later on along with the final judgment to be passed in the sessions case by the learned Judge. 6. In the result, this petition is dismissed. I may hasten to observe that I have not intended to express any final opinion on the question whether the signature appearing in the F.I.S is really that of PW1 or not. The learned Sessions Judge must also consider this contention in the light of the totality of inputs at the appropriate stage. The option of the petitioner to challenge the impugned order shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this petition. 7. With this observation, this petition is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.3555/08 5 Crl.M.C.No.3555/08 6 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008