Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the original complainant.

2. Applicant has filed this application challenging two orders passed by the learned Magistrate; one dated 21/4/2010 by which application filed by the applicant for sending disputed cheques to the handwriting expel1 was rejected and the other dated 15/06/20 I 0 by which application made by the applicant for recalling the witness for cross-examination was rejected.

3. Brief facts are that a complaint was filed by Respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the complaint, it is alleged that the complainant is a businessman and a Proprietor of M/s. Mannit Jewels which is a Proprietor Firm dealing in business of diamonds. It is alleged that the accused applicant herein is also a Proprietor of Prakash Corporation which is dealing in diamonds. According to the complainant, he sold cut diamonds under Invoice dated 07/06/2007 worth Rs.3,25,220/- to the accused and. according to him, in discharge of the said liability. the accused issued two cheques to the complainant drawn on Bank of Baroda, Altamount Road Branch. Mumbai; one dated 05/07/2007 for an amount of Rs.1,45,000/- and the other dated 10/07/2007 for an amount of Rs.1.75.000/-. According to the complainant the said cheques were signed by the accused in his capacity as an authorized signatory of M/s. Prakash Corporation. The said cheques, when they were deposited. were returned unpaid by the Banker of the accused. The complainant issued legal notice dated 27/09/2007 and called upon the accused to make payment of the aforesaid amount within 15 days from the date of receipt by the accused. This notice was served. However. thereafter, since the amount was not paid. complainant filed this complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Alongwith the complaint. both the cheques were annexed so also the Bank Memo, intimation of dishonour, legal notice, postal receipt and the Invoice. List of witnesses was also given. This complaint was filed in October. 2007. Process was issued. Plea of the accused was recorded. Affidavit in lieu of evidence of the complainant was filed. The complainant was cross-examined by the counsel for the accused. Thereafter. application was filed by the applicant herein for sending both the cheques involved in the case to the State Examiner of Handwriting on 21/04/2010. Both. the applicant and complainant were heard. The said application, however. was rejected. Thereafter. another application was filed by the applicant herein dated 31/05/2010 seeking an order of recalling of the complainant for cross-examination. This second application was also rejected by the trial Court.

4. Shri. A.H.H. Ponda, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant. submitted that he does not wish to press the application so far as it relates to challenge to the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting his application filed under section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code. So far as the application for sending the two cheques to the Handwriting Expert is concerned. he firstly submitted that there are material alterations in the cheques that have rendered the Negotiable Instruments void. He submitted that these alterations have been carried out without the consent of the applicant. He invited my attention to the provisions of sections 20 and 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He submitted that if it is proved that there are material alterations in the Negotiable Instrument. it makes the said Negotiable Instrument void. He submitted that the said cheques were given only as a security and though signatures were not disputed, it is the case of the applicant that the cheques were not filled up by him. He submitted that the learned Magistrate has erred in holding that there could be implied authority of filling up the c