JUDGMENT :

S. K. SAHOO, J.

1. The petitioners have filed this application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned order dated 06.01.2012 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in I.C.C. No.273 of 2010 in rejecting the petition filed by the petitioners for sending Exts.3 to 5 and Exts.9/1 and 9/2 to the handwriting expert along with admitted writings of the complainant and the accused persons with a direction to make examination of the question documents and to submit the report. Though another petition was filed by the petitioners for summoning I.C.C. of Keonjhar police station to produce S.D. Entry No.148 dated 29.07.2009 and to issue summon to the Post Master, G.P.O. to proof the delivery of the letter dated 18.11.2009 to Nihar Ranjan Patnaik and the said petition was also rejected but the learned counsel for the petitioners confined his challenge to the rejection of the petition relating to the sending of the exhibits to the handwriting expert. The factual scenario of the case indicates that the opposite party is the complainant in I.C.C. Case No.273 of 2010 and the petitioners are the accused persons the complaint petition was filed for prosecuting the accused persons under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act case.

2. During course of trial on 23.12.2011 a petition was filed by the petitioners to send the Exts.3 to 5 as well as Exts.9/1 and 9/2 to the handwriting experts for examination. It is the case of the petitioners that Exts.3 to 5 were the blank cheques which were handed over to the complainant on good faith for use of the same whenever required by the petitioners for the purpose of their business at Bhubaneswar as they were residing at Keonjhar but the cheques were misutilized by the complainant by filling up the blank entries in the cheque and mentioning the date and amount. It is the case of the petitioners that the admitted signatures on the cheque the petitioners is required to be compared with the handwriting mentioned in the body of the cheques and that by making such handwriting examination, it can be ascertained that the cheques had not been written by the accused-petitioners who had signed on the same. It is also contended that Exts.9/1 and 9/2 are the postal acknowledgements which do not bear the handwritings of the accused Dibyendu Pattnaik and Subendu Pattnaik and therefore, the admitted handwriting of those two co-accused persons with the handwriting on the receipt portion of the AD is required to be compared. The prayer was opposed to by the complainant, inter alia on the ground that there was no necessity to send the above documents to the handwriting expert for comparison and report. The learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar after taking note of the contentions raised by the respective parties has been pleased to hold that whereas the complainants claim is that the cheque in competent form containing the signature of accused Dibyendu Pattnaik had been given to the complainant to discharge their legally enforceable date but on perusal of the cheques it appears that accused Dibyendu Pattnaik has again initial signature on all the cheques i.e. Exts.3 to 5 and therefore, it is not possible to make comparison of the initials with the details of handwriting appearing on the other parts of the cheques. The learned Magistrate further held that the chance of writing of the cheques by somebody and thereafter putting of the signature of the account holder cannot be ruled out and it is the burden on the accused persons to establish their plea regarding issuance of blank cheque by adducing evidence. The learned Magistrate further held that the examination of the contents of the cheques with the initial signature of accused Dibyendu Pattnaik is nowhere has the Court for proper adjudication of the dispute. So far as Exts.9/1 and 9/2 are concerned, those were the postal acknowledgments cards which were received by the accused persons with reference to the notice issued by the complainant vide post