IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 223 of 2009() ------------------------ CC.57/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PAYYOLI .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- RAMATH KUNHAHAMMED, 40 YEARS, RAMATH HOUSE, P.O.CHEMMARATHUR, MENMUNDA, CALICUT. BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RESHMI RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. M.V.ASEES REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,M.P.KUNJAMMED KUTTY,S/O.KUNJABDULLA, METHALE PULIKODE HOUSE, KALLODE, PAINOTH, KOYILANDY. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM ADVOCATE SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.223 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2009 ORDER Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The case has now reached the stage of defence evidence. The petitioner filed two applications at the defence stage. First one was to call for the details of the bank account of the complainant. The next was to forward the cheque to the expert. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order, copies of which are produced as Annexures-4 and 6, dismissed such applications. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned orders. According to the petitioner the denial of such opportunity to adduce evidence affects the right of the petitioner to discharge his burden under Section 139 of the N.I Act. In these circumstances it is prayed that the impugned orders may be set aside and the petitioner may be given an opportunity to call for the details of the bank account of the complainant and also to get the cheque examined by the expert. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submits that the said plea is without any merit. The transparent Crl.M.C. No.223 of 2009 2 attempt is to prolong and protract the proceedings. The counsel submits that in the reply notice the very specific case urged is that the blank signed cheques were lost. At the stage of trial there is an admission on the part of the accused and he now admits his signature. The want of bona fides in the defence can be spelt out from the incongruent stand taken In any view of the matter the prayer to send the cheque to the expert was validly rejected by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner once denied his signature and is now admitting the signature knocking the bottom out of the defence set up by him, submits the learned counsel for the respondent. As far as the prayer to call for the details of the accounts of the complainant is concerned, the learned counsel for the complainant points out that there is no case at all that the amounts came from the account of the complainant. That being so, the prayer to call for records relating to the account of the complainant is without any merit, submits the learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The impugned orders are interlocutory orders. It is trite that the law frowns upon attempts to challenge interlocutory orders during the pendency of the proceedings. This policy of law is clearly reflected in Section 397(2) Cr.P.C Crl.M.C. No.223 of 2009 3 which proscribes challenge against interlocutory orders during the pendency of the proceedings before the court. Ordinarily a person aggrieved by an interlocutory order will have to wait until disposal of the proceedings to mount the challenge against the interlocutory orders. Of course in an exceptional case where the interests of justice compellingly demand and warrant such course, this court has the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned order. I am not persuaded to agree that the invocation of the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C is necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this Crl.M.C will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise all relevant contentions before the learned Magistrate and if necessary to challenge the impugned orders later along with final orders to be passed by the learned Magistrate. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-