Judgment : This revision is directed against the order dated 14-11-2011 passed in Crl.M.P.No.4425 of 2011 in C.C.No.107 of 2009 on the file of the VI-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajhmundry, whereby and whereunder, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. The 2nd respondent is the complainant and the petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.107 of 2009. The 2nd respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner issued a cheque bearing No.718061 towards discharge of the legally enforceable debt and on presentation, the same came to be dishonoured. Despite statutory notice, the petitioner-accused did not make good the amount covered under the cheque. Hence, the complaint came to be presented against the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The 2nd respondent – complainant adduced evidence on his behalf. The petitioner-accused filed Crl.M.P.No.4425 of 2011 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the cheque bearing No.718061 to a hand-writing expert for opinion. The learned Magistrate, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the Counsel for the parties, proceeded to dismiss the petition by order dated 14-11-2011. The relevant portion of the order needs to be noted and it is thus:- “A careful perusal of the entire record and the evidence on record disclosed that the accused-petitioner herein did not deny his signature on Ex.P.2/cheque bearing No.718061. It is further observed that the accused in the cross-examination of P.W.1 is by putting suggestion to the P.W.1 directly admitted the issuance of cheque by the accused, which reads “it is not true to suggest that the cheque given by the accused to Adireddy Apparao due to financial transactions between them it was handed over to me and about misuse the said cheque and filed in this complaint”.Basing on the aforesaid admission of issuance of cheque irrespective of the question that whether it is given in favour of complainant/respondent or to any other person, this Court can safely come to conclusion that filing petition under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act lacks merits.” Hence, this revision. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order impugned in the revision. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order impugned in the revision. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner disputed the signature appearing on the cheque and therefore the opinion of the Handwriting Expert is necessary for proper appreciation of evidence. As could be seen from the order impugned in the revision, the petitioner-accused suggested to P.W.1 (complainant) that he misused the cheque issued in favour of Adireddy Apparao and filed the complaint. The suggestions put to P.W.1 indicates that the petitioner does not dispute of his signature appearing on the cheque. Such is the stand of the petitioner-accused, the Trial Court is justified in dismissing the application. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned in the revision case. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.