ORDER

1. This memorandum of Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) assailing the order passed by the learned V Additional District Judge at Khammam in Crl.M.P.No.3 of 2026 in Criminal Appeal No.39 of 2025, dated 31.03.2026.

2. Heard Sri Vijay Ashrit, learned counsel for the petitioner, Kum. Poosa Manasa, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned appellate court erred in dismissing the petition for seeking expert opinion by overlooking the fact that there is material alteration of the cheque was central to the liability of the petitioner – accused and the burden was on him to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned appellate court erred in holding that the petitioner – accused has admitted his signature on the cheque and hence he could not have sought an expert opinion and failed to exercise its jurisdiction. The learned appellate court has erred in holding that the mandate under Section 45 of the Evidence Act was advisory and erroneously concluded that if expert opinion is taken would cause filling up of lacuna. In fact the expert opinion would only throw new light on the disputed questions of material alteration and there is no cause for filling up any lacuna. The learned appellate court has committed grave error by holding that it is not a fit case for sending to expert opinion on the question of material alteration. Counsel in support of his contention has relied on the decision in the case of Rajasab Vs. Hulagapa¹Special Leave to Petition Criminal No.71025 of 2025 dated17.07.2026, in the supreme Court of India and prayed to set aside the impugned order.

4. Respondent No.1 has filed counter and contended that the petitioner – accused is protracting the case for more than ten years and during pendency of C.C.No.224 of 2015, petitioner – accused has filed several criminal petitions before the trial court and criminal revision cases before this Court on the frivolous grounds, made his best efforts to dodge the matter. DW1 has admitted his signatures on Ex.P1 – cheque, Ex.P6 – undertaking memo dated 26.07.20216 and Ex.P7 – promissory note dated 14.12.2023 and prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Respondent No.1 has filed private complaint under Section 138 of NI Act, which came to be numbered as C.C.No.224 of 2015 and is tried by the learned Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate, Khammam. During pendency of the said C.C., petitioner – accused has filed Crl.M.P.No.707 of 2022 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act praying the Court to send Ex.P7-demand promissory note dated 14.12.2013 to hand writing expert [FSL, Hyderabad] for opinion and report to know whether there is any alteration of figure “1” as “7” in the amount column at the top of the same. Respondent No.1 – complainant has filed his counter and opposed the said application. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 21.09.2022 has dismissed the petition.

6. Petitioner – accused aggrieved by the order in Crl.M.P.No.707 of 2022, dated 21.09.2022 filed Criminal Petition No.9245 of 2022 before this Court which came to be disposed of vide order dated12.07.2023 which reads as under:

11. Taking into consideration the observation of the trial Court that the matter is being prolonged from time to time, this Court is of the considerable view that the petitioner/accused shall move a petition before the trial Court under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to compare the material alterations with that of Ex.P7 - Demand Promissory Note dated 14.12.2013 and on such petition, the trial Court shall pass necessary orders within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of filing of the said petition. Since the matter is being prolonged from time to time, the trial Court shall dispose of the m