Judgment :- The revision is filed challenging the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Villupuram in C.C.No.64/2006. 2.During the course of trial for the charge under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the respondent herein marked certain documents classifying them as promissory notes. The trial court chose to mark those documents. An objection was raised before the trial court by the petitioners herein on the ground that the promissory notes which were unstamped cannot be marked during the course of trial. It has also been objected on the ground that those documents also do not appear to be promissory notes as there was no unconditional undertaking to pay the amount as defined under section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981. Therefore, those documents cannot be marked and entertained by the trial court. But the trial court rejected the objection raised by the petitioners who are the accused in a case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3.Aggrieved by such an order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Villupuram, the present revision was preferred. 4.Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the trial court has erred in admitting inadmissible documents classifying them as promissory notes. It is his further submission that unstamped promissory notes should not have been entertained by the trial court. Therefore, the learned Senior counsel would submit that the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Villupuram will have to be set aside. 5.Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant would contend that no revision would lie as against the interlocutory order passed by the trial court. Secondly, the subject documents are not at all promissory notes and they are only the receipts evidencing the payment made by the respondent to the petitioners. The receipts can be admitted of course, subject to the payment of stamp duty and penalty imposed by the trial court. On these two grounds, revision petition laid seeking to set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Villupuram, is not sustainable. 6.As per section 397[2] Cr.P.C., no revision can be preferred as against an interlocutory order passed in the trial proceedings. It has been well settled that an order which does not terminate the entire criminal proceedings would be construed only as an interlocutory order and not a final order. 6.As per section 397[2] Cr.P.C., no revision can be preferred as against an interlocutory order passed in the trial proceedings. It has been well settled that an order which does not terminate the entire criminal proceedings would be construed only as an interlocutory order and not a final order. In this case, it appears that an objection was raised for marking certain promissory notes in a case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Such objection was overruled by the trial court giving certain reasons. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant the aforesaid order passed by the trial court does not terminate the entire proceedings initiated by the respondent herein. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the order impugned can be construed as a final order. The order under challenge is only an interlocutory in nature and therefore, criminal revision petition cannot be filed invoking provision under section 397 Cr.P.C. 7.Coming to the merit of the case, on a careful perusal of the impugned promissory notes marked before the trial court, it is found that those documents are neither promissory notes nor even receipts for payment of the amount inasmuch as there was no indication in the said documents that there was an unconditional undertaking to pay the amount by the promisor and there was also no indication that the receipt of some amount was acknowledged by the person who received the amount. We can at best, construe such a document as some correspondence between the parties. Of course, the trial court has to decide the tenor of the documents which have come into existence between the parties at the fag end of the trial. 8.As the impugned documents are neither promissory notes nor receipts and they are only some correspondence between the parties, the question of collecting stamp duty and penalty does not arise for consideration. Only when these documents are found to be unstamped promissory notes, the objection raised by the petitioners herein can be sustained. But the documents have not been couched in such a fashion. 9.Therefore, the court find that there is no necessity to interfere with the order passed by the trial court. Further, the court finds that the criminal revision as against the interlocutory order passed by the trial court is not at all maintainable. On those two grounds the revision fails and it stands dismissed. 9.Therefore, the court find that there is no necessity to interfere with the order passed by the trial court. Further, the court finds that the criminal revision as against the interlocutory order passed by the trial court is not at all maintainable. On those two grounds the revision fails and it stands dismissed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.