ORDER 1. Brief facts of the controversy involved under section 482 of the CrPC is that the appellant Abhishek was being proceeded against for offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The applicant had moved an application for adducing the opinion of the handwriting expert regarding signature on the cheque and the application has been dismissed by the ACJM, Indore by impugned order dated 15.9.2011 passed in Criminal Complain No. 2154/2009 and hence this present application. 2. Counsel for the applicant has relied on T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidhar 2008 (2) DCR 634 whereby the Apex Court has held that liberty must be granted to the accused for adducing evidence in rebuttal thereof. As the law places the burden on the accused he must be given reasonable opportunity to discharge the same. Counsel submitted that stay has been granted by this Court on 15.11.2011 and she prayed for allowing the present application. 3. Counsel for the respondent has opposed the stay granted earlier on 15.11.2011. He has submitted that the trial is unnecessarily protracted at the fag end. He further submitted that the stay has been granted since the accused had disputed the signature on the cheque. Whereas there was clear admission that the signautre has been made by him. Hence, counsel has prayed for dismissal of the application. 4. At this juncture, counsel for the petitioner has pointed that there was some typographical error in the stay order. The accused has not disputed the signature on the cheque. It is the admitted fact that the accused has given blank and signed cheque and never disputed the loan amount of Rs. 20,000/- which is the outstanding amount to be paid by him to the complainant. Counsel further relied on Mrs. Kalyani Baskar v. Mrs. M.S. Sampoornam: 2007 (1) DCR 168 whereby the Apex Court has categorically considered the scope of powers of Magistrate to seek expert opinion after evidence of proseuction was rejected and the Apex Court had directed that fair trial includes fair and proper opportunities allowed by law to prove the innocence of the acused. And adducing evidence in support of the defence is a valuable right. Denial of that right means denial of fair trial. 5. On considering the above submission, I find that no fault can be found in the stay granted earlier by this Court. And adducing evidence in support of the defence is a valuable right. Denial of that right means denial of fair trial. 5. On considering the above submission, I find that no fault can be found in the stay granted earlier by this Court. In fact the accused is expected to adduce evidence in rebuttal to discharge the burden. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case since the blank cheque was issued according to the accused an opportunity must be given to him in the principles of natural justice. 6. In this light, I find that the dispute pertains to only protraction of the trial and hence, the application is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside. It is directed that the accused applicant shall be given an opportunity to adduce the opinion of the handwriting expert at his own expense without wasting any further time. The trial Court is directed to complete the entire exercise within a month from today. 7. The application is, therefore, allowed to the extent herein above indicated.