there are material alterations in the cheque. Hence, the accused preferred an application Exhibit 48 before the learned trial court on 26-10-2009 stating therein that he has grievance about handwriting of the cheque, and therefore, requested the learned trial court to send the said cheque to the handwriting expert and call for the report in respect of name and date on the said cheque. The complainant opposed the said application by filing his say, and submitted that there is no suggestion in the cross examination conducted by the accused in respect of the prayer in the said application. It is also contended in the said reply by the complainant, that the said application was preferred by the accused at the belated stage and after recording statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is pointed out in the said say, that there is no reasonable cause to allow the said application and there are no bona fides of the accused reflected in the said application, and the said application was preferred by the accused just to protract the proceeding. Considering the contents of the said application preferred by the accused, as well as, contents of the reply filed by the complainant, and also considering rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, learned trial court rejected the said application by order dated 31st October 2009. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order, the accused i.e. applicant herein has preferred the present Application
