Judgment :- 1. The appeal is directed against the order of remand passed by the learned V Additional Sessions Judge in the appeal preferred by the accused, aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed on him by the Trial Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The Court heard the submissions made on either side. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant would seriously contend that the V Additional Sessions Judge who had earlier rejected the plea to send the very same cheque for comparison by a handwriting expert in the revision preferred by the accused chose to observe in the appeal preferred after the case in C.C.No.3788 of 2001 was finally disposed of by the Trial Court that the Trial Court shall give an opportunity for the accused to take steps for the examination of the disputed cheque by a handwriting expert in the Court premises and consequently remanded the case for fresh disposal. Therefore, he would submit that the very same Judge had taken a contradictory decision one in the revision and another in the appeal preferred by the very same accused. Therefore, he would submit that the remand is quite unwarranted and as a consequence, the decision to remand the matter for fresh disposal is liable to be set aside. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent/accused would submit that the respondent/accused is entitled to establish the plea of material alteration in the subject cheque. The Appellate Court has rightly given an opportunity for the accused to take steps to subject Ex.P1 cheque for close examination by a handwriting expert. As the remand is warranted for giving such an opportunity, the decision taken by the Appellate Judge need not be upset, he would submit. 5. The respondent/accused who face the proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act at the hands of the appellant/complainant filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.4260 of 2005 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act praying the Trial Court to send the cheque to the handwriting expert for his opinion as to the material alteration found in the cheque. The Trial Court dismissed the said petition. Criminal Revision 239 of 2005 was preferred by the accused, challenging such an order passed by the Trial Court. The operative portion of the said order reads as follows: "6. I have bestowed my careful thought to the submissions made on cithcraidc. The Trial Court dismissed the said petition. Criminal Revision 239 of 2005 was preferred by the accused, challenging such an order passed by the Trial Court. The operative portion of the said order reads as follows: "6. I have bestowed my careful thought to the submissions made on cithcraidc. Admittedly the Revision Petitioner is facing trial for the alleged offence under Sec.138 of N.I.Act and the trial is almost over. As against the dismissal of the discharge petition, the Revision petitioner did not prefer any revision or appeal. However, he has filed a petition under sec.45 of Evidence Act to send Ex.P1 cheque to the Forensic Science Department to find out any material alteration in the date and year of cheque at the fag end of trial. However both sides conceds that it is clearly visible to the naked eye. But according to the Revision Petitioner it is material alteration and according to the Respondent there is no material alteration. Under these circumstances, coupled with the fact of absence of reply to the statutory notice and the rounding up of item No.15 in Ex.P2 during the course of trial which ought not to have been done, I am of the considered view that the trial court itself is competent to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence of the parties with regard to the alleged material alteration if any in Ex.P1 in respect of the date and year of issue of cheque. Hence, I am of the opinion that there is no need to send Ex.P1 cheque for an experts opinion as claimed by the Revision Petitioner and therefore, I am not inclined to allow the Revision Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed." 6. The V Additional Sessions Judge has taken a decision in the Revision preferred by the Accused that there was no necessity to send the subject cheque to the handwriting expert for opinion as the Trial Court has ample power to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties to arrive at a decision whether there was any material alteration in the subject cheque. 7. After the said order was passed by the V Additional Sessions Judge in the Criminal Revision preferred by the accused, the accused did not challenge the said order passed in the criminal revision case by the V Additional Sessions Judge. 7. After the said order was passed by the V Additional Sessions Judge in the Criminal Revision preferred by the accused, the accused did not challenge the said order passed in the criminal revision case by the V Additional Sessions Judge. He chose to contest the case in C.C.No.3788 of 2001 before the Trial Court. The Trial Court finally passed a verdict convicting the accused and sentencing him to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment. 8. The accused preferred an appeal in C.A.No.301 of 2006 before the very same V Additional Sessions Judge. While disposing of the aforesaid criminal appeal preferred by the accused, the following contradictory view was expressed by the very same judge in the judgment passed by him in the appeal: "17. In the result, the Criminal appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment of the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai -1 passed in C.C.No.3788/2001 dated 110. 2006 and the case is remitted to the trial court. The learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai is directed to restore the case on file and further directed to give an opportunity for the accused to take steps for the examination of Ex.P1 cheque by a hand writing expert in the court premises itself in the presence of the court officer and to receive his opinion, if any, and examine him as a witness and dispose of the case in accordance with law within 3 months from the date of receipt of the case records from this court." 9. He chose to observe in the judgment passed in the appeal preferred by the accused that an opportunity will have to be given to the accused to take steps for the examination of the subject cheque by a handwriting expert in the court premises. 10. Within a span of about 1 ½ years, the very same Judge has chosen to take a contradictory view and elected to remand the matter to the Trial Court for affording such an opportunity. 11. The aforesaid order passed by the Appellate Authority in the appeal preferred by the accused grants virtually the relief he has sought in the criminal revision case filed earlier by him and was dismissed by the very same Appellate Judge. 11. The aforesaid order passed by the Appellate Authority in the appeal preferred by the accused grants virtually the relief he has sought in the criminal revision case filed earlier by him and was dismissed by the very same Appellate Judge. Such a contradictory decision is not expected from a judicial officer which will definitely erode faith of the public in the judicial system. 12. In view of the above facts and circumstance, the Court finds that there is no warrant for remand on the aforesaid contradictory view taken by the very same appellate Judge. Therefore, the order of remand passed in the appeal stands set aside. The appeal preferred by the petitioner/complainant in C.A.No.1103 of 2007 is consequently allowed, directing the V Additional Sessions Judge to take up C.A.No.301 of 2006 on the file again and dispose of the same on merits within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.