1. The challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is to the order dated 4-8-2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Margao in Criminal Revision Application No. 30/2015. By the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge had allowed the Criminal Revision Application filed by the respondent No. 1, thereby allowing the application filed by the respondent No. 1 for referring the disputed cheque to the handwriting expert.

2. The brief facts are that the petitioner has filed a complaint against the respondent No. 1 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of cheque. During trial, the petitioner examined Mr. Surendra Gaonkar and his cross-examination on behalf of the respondent No. 1 was concluded on 11-4-2015. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 filed an application on 13-4-2015 for referring the disputed cheque to the Handwriting Expert. It was contended that the subject cheque was a blank cheque signed by the respondent No. 1 and was obtained by the petitioner as a security. In other words, it was contended that the said cheque was not passed for repayment of any existing liability, which is the requirement of section 138 of the Act.

3. The application was opposed on behalf of the petitioner, inter alia, contending that this is an attempt to delay the proceedings.

4. The learned Magistrate, by an order dated 20-4-2015, dismissed the application, inter alia, holding that since neither the signature on the cheque is disputed nor a specific suggestion is put in that regard to the witness of the petitioner, the application cannot be granted as “no purpose would be served”. The learned Magistrate specifically found that the application is filed only to delay the proceedings.

5. The respondent No. 1 challenged the said order before the learned Sessions Judge, who by the impugned judgment, has allowed the application.

6. I have heard Shri Nachinolkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Pereira, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record.

7. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 has neither issued a reply to the statutory notice nor has disputed the signature on the cheque. It is submitted that the respondent No. 1 has also not entered into the witness box and has closed his defence evidence and as such, the application filed, was clearly misconceived and the learned Magistrate had rightly come to the conclusion that the application was filed with a view to delay the proceedings. It is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge was in error in interfering with the said order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, particularly when there was no irregularity in the exercise of the discretion by the learned Magistrate. On behalf of the petitioner, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Prakash Sevantilal Vora vs. State of Maharashtra and anr., 2011 MhLJ Online (Cri.) 25 = (2011) Cr.L.J 2207 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of I.C.D.S. Ltd. vs. Beena Shabeer, 2002(4) Mh.L.J. (S.C.) 1 = (2002) 6 SCC 426. It is submitted that as held by the Supreme Court in the case of ICDS Ltd. (supra), it is not necessary that the body of the cheque has to be filled in by the accused and it is sufficient for raising a presumption under section 139 read with section 118 of the Act that the cheque is signed by the accused. It is submitted that this Court in the case of Prakash Vora (supra), in a similar factual matrix, has upheld the order of the learned Magistrate refusing to refer the disputed cheque to the Handwriting Expert.

8. On the contrary, it is submitted by Ms. Pereira, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 that the application for referring the subject cheque to the Handwriting Expert was filed within about 13 days of the clo