S.N. Satyanarayana, J.

1. The accused in C.C. No. 73/2009 pending on the file of JMFC, Srinivaspura, has come up in this criminal petition seeking to set aside the order dated 15.10.2013 passed in Crl. R.P. No. 82/2012 on the file of I Additional Sessions Court, wherein the revision petition is dismissed confirming the order dated 6.10.2012 passed in C.C. No. 73/2009.

2. Admittedly, the aforesaid orders are on an application filed by the accused under Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act (the Act' for short), seeking to refer the cheque dated 15.10.2008 (vide Ex. P1) produced by the complainant to the forensic laboratory for an opinion of the expert. When said application came to be filed, it was dismissed on the ground that there is admission on the part of petitioner herein, who is accused before the learned Magistrate in having put the signature on the said cheque. That since dispute is only with reference to the contents of the cheque not being written by the accused and according to him, the same is filled up by the complainant in handwriting other than that of the accused, therefore, the document is required to be referred for forensic investigation to verify the age of the signature as well as other contents of the disputed document/cheque by referring the document to forensic laboratory, does not arise. The learned Magistrate also felt that no grounds are made out to refer the cheque for chemical analysis and accordingly, rejected the application.

3. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused-petitioner herein preferred a revision under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. in Crl. R.P. No. 82/2012 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Kolar, wherein the learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the revision petitioner felt that in the light of Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C., the order sought to be revised cannot be entertained by the Court of Sessions on the ground that it is only an interlocutory order and therefore, the said revision petition is not maintainable and accordingly dismissed the revision petition. Being aggrieved by the finding of both the courts below, this criminal petition is filed by the accused seeking to set aside the order passed by the Sessions Court in dismissing the revision petition and also seeking to set aside the order passed by the JMFC, Srinivasapura in rejecting his application filed under Section 45 and 73 of the Act.

4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Perused the orders impugned and also the copy of application, which is filed by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate. On going through the same, it is seen that in the said application the petitioner herein has taken a specific defence that the cheque, which is available with the complainant no doubt belongs to him and the signature that it carries also is that of himself. According to him, it was never given to the complainant on 10.8.2008 as contended and it was not with reference to repayment of alleged loan. In the defence it is specifically stated that there was a chit transaction between the complainant and accused even prior to 2005 and in that context, while receiving the amount that was paid in the chit as and by way of security, the cheque in question was handed over to the complainant in the year 2005. While doing so, since it was for the sake of security, except putting the signature on the cheque, the rest of the columns of the cheque were left blank, which according to the petitioner/accused is utilized by the complainant by filling up the cheque by himself and presenting the same for realization of non existing debt. Therefore, the said cheque cannot be accepted on its face value and the same is required to be referred to forensic laboratory.

5. In the application, which was filed by petitioner under Section 45 and 73 of the Act, it was sought that the said cheque should be referred to forensic expert to ascertain the age of the ink of signature of petitioner on the disputed cheque. Also the age of the ink use