ORDER 1. With the consent of parties, matter is finally heard. 2. Petitioner has filed this petition under section 482, CrPC for setting aside the order dated 20.7.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Gwalior in Criminal Revision No. 182/2010; whereby, order dated 22.2.2010 passed by the JMFC, Gwalior in Criminal Case No. 11892/07 dismissing the application of the petitioner filed under section 45 of the Evidence Act for sending disputed cheque for examination by handwriting expert, is affirmed. 3. Facts in narrow compass are that the petitioner is facing criminal trial in Court of JMFC, Gwalior on a complaint filed by the respondent under Negotiable Instruments Act (for brevity "N.I.Act"). In that case the petitioner filed one application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act praying that disputed Cheque No. 010102 is alleged to be signed by the complainant and the petitioner has already made a complaint to concerning Bank on 24.5.2007 that the disputed cheque No. 010102, dated 13.7.2007 alongwith two other Cheque Nos. 010109 and 010110 which are all signed by the petitioner have been lost. Hence to prevent its misuse, prayed for stopping the payment of aforesaid Cheques. It is averred in the application that complainant is petitioner's friend and taking the advantage of fraternity, he has stolen all those cheques and complainant himself has written his name and date on the disputed cheque. On the disputed cheque the petitioner has neither written the name of complainant nor the date. This part of the disputed Cheque in which "name of the complainant" and "date" have been written is to be sent for examination by handwriting expert. That application was rejected by the learned trial Court and revision preferred against the order is also dismissed giving rise to this petition. 4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that orders of learned Courts below are illegal, improper and deserve to be set aside. There is vast difference in the ink used in signature of petitioner with the ink used in writing the name of complainant and date on the cheque. Hence prayed for setting aside the orders of the Courts below with a direction that disputed cheque be sent for examination by handwriting expert so far as that part of cheque concerning name of complainant and date is concerned. 5. Hence prayed for setting aside the orders of the Courts below with a direction that disputed cheque be sent for examination by handwriting expert so far as that part of cheque concerning name of complainant and date is concerned. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew this Court's attention to a citation in Mukesh Goyal v. Yasin Patel, 2009 (III) MPWN 117. In that case, considering the fact that applicant has been deprived of the right to prove the fact that initially the cheque had been issued in the year 1997 and it has been forged by the complainant by wrongly mentioning the date as in the year 2003 on the cheque, therefore, the age of writing on the disputed Cheque is material for determination of the rights of the applicant/accused. It is held that applicant is entitled to get the cheque examined by handwriting expert to ascertain the age of writing on the disputed Cheque. Further reliance is placed in Kalyani Raskar (Mrs.) v. M.S. Sampoornam (Mrs.), (2007) 2 SCC 258 . In that case, at initial stage appellant had filed an application under section 245 of CrPC in which she had categorically denied her signature on the Cheque and its delivery to respondent besides raising other preliminary objection in opposition to the complaint filed by the respondent under section 138 of N.I. Act. That application was dismissed on the ground that genuineness of signature could be questioned only at the time of trial of complaint then trial was commenced and appellant filed application under section 243 of CrPC to send cheque in question to handwriting expert. Learned Magistrate dismissed the application on the ground that it was not mandatory that every disputed document or signature has to be sent to an expert for opinion against that order appellant preferred Criminal Revision No. 335/2002 in High Court of Judicature of Madras which was dismissed and appeal was preferred in apex Court against that order. Appeal was allowed and order of High Court passed in Criminal Revision by which order of JMFC dismissing the application of applicant under section 243 was affirmed, was set aside. 6. Placing reliance on the aforesaid citations, it is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that the orders passed by both the Courts below are against the law and deserve to be set aside. 7. 6. Placing reliance on the aforesaid citations, it is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that the orders passed by both the Courts below are against the law and deserve to be set aside. 7. Combating the arguments advanced by learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel respondent vehemently opposed the petition and prayed for its rejection. 8. On perusal of the documents on record it is apparent that the petitioner accused has admitted his signature on the disputed Cheque. Hence presumption arises as per provision of section 20 of the NIAct with regard to fact that cheque had been issued by the signatory after filling it properly. In this case, the learned trial Court as well as Revisional Court has rightly observed that since signature of petitioner on disputed Cheque is admitted by the petitioner himself, hence no need for sending disputed Cheque for examination by handwriting expert concerning other part of Cheque concerning name of the complainant arid date which is alleged to be filled by complainant. So far as citations relied upon by the petitioner are concerned, facts of those cases are different as in those cases signature of accused on Cheques was disputed while facts of case at hand are• altogether different. Considering the overall aspects of the matter so also the impugned orders and the documents on record, it is apparent that the orders-of the trial Court and Revisional Court are just, proper, impeccable and infallible and I do not find any perversity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the petition being bereft of any substance, is dismissed.