ORDER:

This instant Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the validity and correctness of impugned order dated 03.02.2020 in Crl.M.P. No.890 of 2019 in C.C.No.259 of 2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Muvva, Krishna District.

2. Heard Sri Gantasala Uday Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Harikrishna Tata, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Ms. Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Asst. Public Prosecutor, for the state/2nd respondent. Perused the material on record.

3. Case of the petitioner in succinctly a. Petitioner herein being Accused in C.C.No.259 of 2019 is facing the trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882 (For short ‘N.I.Act’). During the course of trial, Petitioner filed a petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, seeking to send the cheque/Ex.P2 to the Director of A.P. State Forensic Science laboratory, Vijayawada to examine the alteration at amount column i.e., ‘1’ as ‘7’.

b. Against said petition, respondent herein i.e., the complainant filed his counter and contested the matter.

c. The learned trial Judge dismissed the petition, holding that the accused did not dispute Ex.P1, the promissory note wherein the amount was mentioned as Rs.8,50,000/- and vide Section 20 of the N.I.Act, when a person signs and delivers to another, either wholly blank or having written thereon an incomplete Negotiable Instrument, gives prima facie authority to the holder thereafter to make complete. The learned judge further observed that it is unsafe to treat the opinion of handwriting expert as sole basis for conviction, but it may be relied upon when supported by other internal or external evidence.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order the accused carried the matter before this Court in the instant petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that accused got issued a reply notice to the notice sent by the complainant demanding him to furnish the alleged promissory note and cheque, so as to give a suitable reply. Thereafter, on receipt of copies of the alleged promissory note and the cheque, they have given a proper reply denying the specific transaction under the promissory note and the cheque. They have specifically taken a plea that, as a security, Accused issued a cheque for Rs.1,24,000/-, but not Rs.7,24,000/-. The record further shows it was confronted to P.W.1 in cross examination about a letter signed by P.W.1 in that regard.

6. Refuting the above submission, learned counsel for respondent would submit that, the alleged letter introduced by the accused, which was confronted to P.W.1 in cross-examination with her signature relating to issuance of the cheque for Rs.1,24,000/- relates to a different transaction, and not the instant one.

7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that a bare perusal of the cheque vide Ex.P2 would show that there is a material alteration in the amount column and with the presumption under Section 139 of N.I.Act, upon admission of signature on the cheque, a due opportunity should be provided to the Accused to rebut the same.

8. Learned counsel for the Respondent would argue that the question relating to the material alteration is a disputing question of fact and law, and for that the accused can adduce his evidence and Court can decide on appreciation of the same. It is further argued that since the opinion of the expert is not an exact science, there are absolutely no grounds to allow the petition and as such the impugned order is sustainable under law. In support of their contention, learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar1, wherein it was held:

“A meaningful reading of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act including, in particular, Sections 20, 87 and 139, makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and ma