AMIT TALUKDAR, J. ( 1 ) THE subject matter of this revisional application is Order No. 9 dated May 28, 1999, passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in Criminal Revision No. 6 of 1999. The learned Chief Judge by his impugned order allowed the revisional application filed on behalf of the opposite party challenging an order dated February 22, 1999, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Calcutta, and allowed his prayer for examination of cheque in question (exhibit 1) by a handwriting expert. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has come up before this court on several grounds. ( 2 ) THE learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that this is a dilatory tactic adopted by the accused/opposite party to delay the trial and that from the evidence adduced by the bank officials it never transpired that the cheque was returned as the signature was not tallying with the specimen signature lying with the bank and even no suggestion was given to them that the signature of the opposite party was not tallying with the specimen signature given in the bank. It has further been submitted that the notice was issued with the stipulated period making demand of the amount quoting the cheque number and reply thereto was sent by the opposite party through his learned lawyer without denying the issuance of the said cheque in favour of the petitioner's company and the defence at the belated stage that the cheque was not issued by the opposite party is nothing but to prolong the matter. Thereafter, it was also submitted that the cheque in question (exhibit 1} being a forged cheque is nothing but an afterthought and at the stage of 313 the point taken by the opposite party should not have been accepted and the learned Chief Judge erred in allowing the prayer of the petitioner for examination by handwriting expert by setting aside the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Calcutta, on February 22, 1999, passed in Case No. 1212 of 1996. ( 3 ) THE learned lawyer on behalf of the opposite party has seriously contested the claim made on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the opposite party who is facing criminal trial for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act should be given every opportunity to prove his innocence and the learned magistrate was not justified-in refusing his prayer for examination of handwriting expert and the learned Chief Judge had rightly allowed such prayer which should not be interfered with by this court. ( 4 ) SEVERAL decisions have been relied upon by the parties which I find are not pertinent to the case ; as such I refrain from discussing the same. ( 5 ) AFTER considering the entire materials and the contesting claim of the parties I find that in the interest of justice the prayer of the petitioner, who as an accused is facing trial, for examination of the cheque by a handwriting expert should have been allowed and the learned Chief Judge has rightly allowed such prayer which, I do not find, should be interfered with by this court. ( 6 ) I find that if the prayer is allowed for examining the handwriting expert no substantial prejudice can be caused to the complainant. The opposite party being an accused in a criminal trial should be allowed every opportunity to prove his innocence. ( 7 ) I, accordingly, find no merit in the revisional application and dismiss the same but, however, direct that the matter being Case No. 1212 of 1996 being an old one, should be concluded with utmost despatch. ( 8 ) I direct that the learned metropolitan magistrate will conclude the entire process as has been directed by the learned Chief Judge in his impugned Order No. 9 dated May 28, 1999, in Criminal Revision No. 6 of 1999, within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of this order.