S. Muralidhar, J.

.1. An interesting question arises in this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) concerning the scope of the powers of a Metropolitan Magistrate (MM), trying a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) to ask for the opinion of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) on the handwriting on the cheques in question despite an application filed by the complainant for the same relief having been dismissed earlier by the learned MM.

.Background facts

.2. The brief facts to filing of this petition are that a complaint being Criminal Case No. 429/1 was filed by the petitioner against the respondent under Section 138 NI Act in the court of learned MM on 18th March, 2002 with regard to the dishonour of two cheques: cheque No. 315106 dated 20th August, 2001 for a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs and cheque No. 315108 dated 28th December, 2001 for a sum of Rs. 32 lakhs. The allegation in the complaint was that the respondent Swaraj Pal Singh had issued the aforementioned cheques in favor of the complainant towards discharge of an admitted liability. Both cheques were, on presentation to the bank for payment, dishonoured with the remarks "insufficient funds." After issuing notices demanding payment, the petitioner filed the aforementioned complaint.

.3. On 17th September 2002 the learned MM passed a summoning order. The application by the respondent recalling the summoning order was dismissed by the learned MM an order dated 9th February 2004. One of the contentions raised by the respondent in support of prayer for recalling the summoning order was that the cheques in question were entrusted to the complainant as a part of the business transactions between the parties and were not meant to be encashed. It was stated that the cheques had been tampered with, filled by the complainant or his associates to make alteration in the amount and the dates without the consent of the drawer i.e. respondent. While rejecting this contention the learned MM in the said order dated 9th February, 2004 observed as under:

.The accused has filed application for recalling of the summoning order on the grounds that the said cheques were not issued on account of any liability and the said cheques were given to the complainant as security for business purposes. The accused has also alleged that the accused misused the said cheques after tampering the same. It is important to note that the accused has admitted that the cheques have been signed by him and were issued in favor of the complainant. The allegations of the accused/applicant that the cheques were not issued in discharge of liability requires evidence which the parties have yet to lead. Further the other allegation as mentioned in the application that the complainant has misused the said cheques after tampering the same can also be not decided without evidence which the parties have yet to lead.

4. By a subsequent order dated 20th April 2004 the learned MM framed charges under Section 251 CrPC. The complainants evidence was then closed on 22nd December 2004. Meanwhile, Crl Rev. P. No. 440 of 2004 filed by the respondent challenging the order dated 9th February 2004 passed by the learned MM was dismissed as withdrawn by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ).

.5. Several adjournments were granted for the production of defense witnesses. On 15th July 2005 the respondent examined himself as DW-1 and was also cross-examined in part. The cross examination was concluded on 17th August 2005. DW-2 was examined on 7th December 2005 and thereafter the defense evidence was closed. The case was listed for final arguments for 13th February, 2006 and after the arguments of the complainant were heard on that date the case was adjourned to 15th February, 2006. Again an adjournment was granted for 15th February, 2006. Thereafter on 8th March, 2006 by a detailed order the trial court

.disposed of an application dated 31st Augu