The accused does not have the right to file a petition to refer a document to a Handwriting Expert for examination during the prosecution's evidence stage, and the trial court's order rejecting such a petition is not revisable.

( 1 ) IN this order it is to be considered whether the revisional application filed by the applicant, Sri Pradip Kumar Sengupta, who is the accused in G. R. 347 of 1995 of the Court of the learned S. D. J. M. , Durgapur should be admitted.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts leading to the filing of this Revisional application may be summarised as follows. The abovementioned Criminal Case in question (G. R. 347/95) arising out of Coke Oven P. S. Case No. 31 dated 17-4-1995 was filed against the present petitioner by one Sri Indrajit Sengupta, the de facto complainant, who was the Director of Titan Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. , in which the petitioner was also another Director at the relevant point of time. The complaint was lodged on 17-4-1995 against the petitioner on the ground that he had submitted false particulars about his qualification, etc. and obtained the employment under the said company by practice of fraud.

( 3 ) ON the basis of this FIR, police started investigation and after the investigation was complete, it submitted a charge-sheet under Section 420/409 of the I. P. C. before the Court of the learned S. D. J. M. , Durgapore. On the basis of the materials on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the learned trial Magistrate framed charge against the accused petitioner under Section 420 of the I. P. C. Here it should be mentioned that before the charge was framed, the accused petitioner filed a petition before this Court praying for quashment of the proceeding in question and a single Bench of this Court allowed his prayer and quashed the criminal proceeding and against the order the de facto-complainant preferred an S. D. P. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and after hearing of the same, the Apex Court came to the finding that from the materials on record a prima facie case under Section 420 of the I. P. C. had been established, although no case under Section 409 of the I. P. C. was made out and in that view of the matter the Apex Court sent the matter back to the learned trial Court for trial so far as it related to the offence under Section 420 of the I. P. C. After that, the Court of the learned trial Magistrate framed the above-mentioned charge in presence of the accused petitioner and after hearing his learned Advocate. Thereafter, the learned Court below commenced the trial of the case and during the examination of the PWs it admitted into evidence a Bio-data which was filed by the prosecution and the Court marked it as an exhibit. However, before the same was admitted into evidence, the accused petitioner filed a petition before the learned trial Court for an order referring the said document, namely, the impugned Bio-data, allegedly filed by the accused petitioner to a Hand writing expert for examination and report on the ground that it was a forged one and was not in his own handwriting or signature. But the learned Magistrate rejected this petition and went on with the trial and in course of that it admitted the said document, namely, that Bio-data, into evidence making it as an exhibit, for the prosecution.

( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by this order of the learned Magistrate rejecting his prayer for referring the document to Hand writing Expert for examination the accused-petitioner has preferred the present revisional application challenging the order as erroneous and illegal and liable to be set aside.

( 5 ) MR. Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the de facto-complainant, has entered his appearance during hearing on this matter and has opposed the admission of this revisional application on the ground that under the law there is no scope for the accused petitioner to make any such prayer before the Court the Court when the prosecution evidence was being adduced. According to him, under the Law of Evidence the accused has no burden to discharge and whether any particular document being relied upon by the prosecution is genuine or not, or, whether in the face of such