The revision petitioner/complainant is before this Court challenging the order dated 21-7-2006 made in C.C. No. 937 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Mudigere.

2. The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/complainant submitted that no evidence was adduced by the accused but he filed an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short, 'the Act') to refer the cheque in question viz., Ex. P. 1 to handwriting expert for opinion whether the signature on the cheque is that of the accused or not. The complainant objected to the application. But the learned Magistrate allowed the application to refer the cheque in question to a handwriting expert.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/accused submitted that the cheque in question is one of the two cheques he lost and his signature is forged and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.

4. The case of the complainant is that the responden1ilaccused approached the complainant and borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- in the month of December 2004 and issued a cheque bearing No. 87784, dated 13-7-2005 drawn on Chickmagalur District Co-operative