JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 01.08.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Ajmer whereby the learned Judge has quashed and set aside the judgment dated 16.12.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ajmer. Vide judgment dated 16.12.2008, the learned Magistrate had convicted and sentenced the accused-respondents for offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Judge has also remanded the case to the learned Magistrate for getting the opinion of the handwriting expert with regard to the signature, which has been placed after correcting the dates shown in the cheque. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that according to the testimony of the bank clerk, the signature was, indeed, that of the accused. Moreover, even earlier the accused had submitted an application for getting the signature on the cheque verified from the handwriting expert. But the said application was dismissed by the learned trial court. Therefore, the learned Judge is not justified in remanding the case to the trial court for seeking the opinion of the handwriting expert. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgment. 4. It is, indeed, a settled principle of law that justice should not only be done, but must appear to be done. This principle is as much applicable to the complainant, as to accused. Since the accused had questioned the veracity of the signature placed on the cheque where the date was corrected, it was imperative to have an opinion of the handwriting expert. The bank clerk cannot claim to be a handwriting expert. Therefore, his testimony does not come to the rescue of the complainant. 5. Moreover, the Appellate Court always has the power to remand the case when it is of the opinion that a fact needs to be established by further evidence. Therefore, there is nothing illegal or perverse about the impugned judgment when the learned Judge has remanded the case for seeking the opinion of the handwriting expert. 6. In this view of the matter, this petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to seek the opinion of the handwriting expert within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this judgment and to expedite the trial as soon as possible.Petition dismissed. *******