might have been one of the cheques kept at home that her husband might have misused. So, she sent a reply denying the execution and issuance of the cheque and also any financial transaction between her and the complainant. In spite of that, complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act. During course of trial, she obtained the certified copy of the documents produced by the complainant and realized that the signature in the disputed cheque is not her signature and it was a forged one. In the cross examination, the complainant also admitted that there is a difference in the signature seen in Ext.P1 and the signature in Ext.P6 postal acknowledgment. So, as part of the defence evidence, she had summoned the bank documents to show her specimen signature given in the bank. So, all these things will go to show that the signature in Ext.P1 is not that of the accused. So, in order to prove the same, she filed an application Crl.M.P.No.29/13 for sending Ext. P1 cheque for expert opinion to ascertain as to whether the signature in Ext.P1 was that of the accused or not. But, the learned magistrate by Annexure A8 order, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has filed by the petitioner to set aside that order.
