ORAL JUDGMENT :- Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up immediately for final hearing. 2. The respondent No.2 filed a complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, against the present applicant alleging that he had issued a cheque of Rs. 70,000/- which was dishonoured on presentation. Thereafter, notice was issued to the applicant but he had failed to make payment. According to the applicant, his cheque book was with respondent No. 2 who was pigmy agent for different banks and later on he found that the last cheque of that cheque book was removed by the respondent No.2, while returning that cheque book to him. In the reply notice he alleged that respondent No.2 might have obtained his signature fraudulently. Initially the respondent No. 2 himself had made an application before the Magistrate to refer the disputed cheque for handwriting expert's report. The applicant had also given no objection to the same. However, later on respondent No.2 did not press that application. Evidence for both the sides were recorded. After recording of evidence of the Bank Manager as defence witness, the present applicant made an application to refer the disputed cheque to handwriting expert for comparison of signature thereon. That application was opposed by the respondent No.2 and was rejected by the Magistrate. Revision Application was also rejected. Therefore, the petitioner has come before this Court under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. It appears that in the reply notice itself the present applicant had disputed that he had issued any cheque to the respondent NO.2. He denied his signature even during the evidence and in fact, he examined the Bank Manager as a defence witness to prove that the signature of the disputed cheque was not his signature. However, Bank Manager admitted that the disputed signature appears to be similar to the specimen signature. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the Bank Manager is also an expert in comparison of signatures and therefore, his evidence is acceptable and it is not necessary to refer the document to the handwriting expert. Even though the Bank Manager is by training and practice experienced to compare the signatures, still he cannot be called as handwriting expert with necessary expertise. Even though the Bank Manager is by training and practice experienced to compare the signatures, still he cannot be called as handwriting expert with necessary expertise. In the present matter huge amount of Rs. 70,000/- is involved. The applicant appears to be small shop keeper. Taking into consideration the stake, I find that it will be in the interest of justice to allow the application and to refer the document to handwriting expert. Mr. Shinde, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 relied upon Inderchand s/o Lakhichand Khivsar vs. Gokul s/o Pitambar Patil and another, 2006(5) Mh.L.J. 61 , in support of his contention that the disputed document cannot be referred to handwriting expert. The said authority is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case there was no dispute about the signature at any stage and only at late stage to protract the litigation, the application was made to refer the document to the expert. In the present case the genuineness of the signature on the document was disputed since beginning, in fact even before filing of the complaint itself and that is why at one stage respondent No.2 himself wanted the disputed document to be referred to handwriting expert. The matter is not very old. The complaint is filed in September, 2004 only. The necessary application was moved by the applicant on 15-9-2005 i.e. within few days after the respondent No. 2 had not pressed his own application dated 18-7-2005. Therefore, it cannot be said that the attempt is being made to protract the litigation. 5. In view of the above circumstances, I find that the Courts below failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances properly before rejecting the prayer of the present applicant. In my opinion, to secure the ends of justice, it is necessary to interfere under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. 6. The application is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by J.M.F.C. Kaij. In S.C.C. 737/2004 and the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge Ambajogai, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 69/2005 are hereby quashed and set aside. The applicant shall pay necessary charges of the handwriting expert and in case he succeeds in proving that the cheque does not bear his signature, the charges shall be recovered from the complainant/respondent No.2. The trial Court shall dispose of the matter as early as possible after obtaining the report of the handwriting expert.