Mir Alfaz Ali, J.

1. Heard Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr. R. Phukan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. Also heard Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the State. Aggrieved by order dated 19.08.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Golaghatin CR(NI Act) Case No. 27/2013, the petitioner has preferred the instant revision petition. By the said order, learned Magistrate rejected the prayer of the petitioner for getting the cheque in question examined by handwriting expert.

2. The respondent herein as complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 N.L. Act, alleging dishonor of a cheque for an amount of Rs. 1,22,000/-. The respondent/complainant has adduced evidence. The accused/revision petitioner, upon entering into his defence filed an application praying for sending the cheque in question to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) in order to get the cheque examined by handwriting expert.

3. The specific allegation of the accused/revision petitioner was that he issued the cheque for an amount of Rs. 22,000/-, wherein the amount was recorded only in figure. He also wrote his account number in the cheque as 17445 and put his signature. Subsequently, the cheque was allegedly manipulated and forged by putting the figure 1' (one) before 22,000/- and thereby the amount of the cheque was raised to Rs. 1,22,000/-. It has also been stated by the petitioner, that except the amount of Rs. 22,000/- in figure, the account number and signature, nothing was written in the cheque by the revision petitioner. Thus alleging misuse and commission of forgery in respect of the cheque, the petitioner sought the cheque to be examined by handwriting expert.

4. Earned Trial Court by the impugned order rejected the petition on the ground that it will cause delay in disposal of the case and fixed next date for comparing the signature of the accused by the court itself.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in T. Nagappa Vs. Y.R. Muralidhar reported in (2008) 5 SCC 633 and Kalyani Baskar Vs. M.S. Sampoomam reported in (2007) 2 SCC 258 submits that the defence of the accused petitioner being manipulation and misuse of the cheque in question, the impugned order refusing to send the cheque for examination by the expert, has deprived the petitioner of his right to defend his case.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent referring to Section 20 and 118 of the NI Act contended that Section 20 of the NI Act has given authority to the holder of the cheque to complete an incomplete negotiable instrument and therefore, it is not open to the drawer of the cheque to object, when he holder of the negotiable instrument completes an incomplete negotiable instrument. It is also submitted that Section 118 raises presumption as to the genuineness of the cheque. As there was no dispute with regard to issuance of the cheque, the petitioner had filed the petition only to cause delay. To resist the prayer of the petitioner for sending the cheque for examination by handwriting expert, learned counsel for the respondent also placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Dayamathi Bai Vs. K.M. Shaffi reported in (2004) 7 SCC 107, T. Nagappa Vs. Muralidhar reported in (2008) 5 SCC 633 and Union of India Vs. V. Jyoti Prakash Mitter reported in AIR 1971 SC 1093.

7. I have considered the submissions of both the sides.

8. Section 243(2) Cr.P.C., which reads as under:

"Section 243(1)..................

(2) If the accused, after he has entered upon his defence, applies to the Magistrate to issue any process for compelling the attendance of any witness for the purpose of examination or cross-examination, or the production of any document or other thing, the Magistrate shall issue such, process unless he considers that such application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice and such