JUDGMENT 1. - The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 8.5.2006 passed by the learned judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sadusahar, district Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Case No. 341 of 2003 as affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar vide order dated 7.5.2008 passed in Criminal Revision No. 52 of 2006. 2. By the impugned order dated 8.5.2006, the learned Magistrate rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for sending the cheque to the handwriting expert for examination. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the examination of the cheque in question by a handwriting expert would make the things clear and, thus, the learned trial Judge has committed grave error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that the petitioner has taken two different stands at different stages in this case in relation to the manner in which the cheque was received by the respondent-complainant and, thus, the prayer made by the petitioner was rightly rejected by the learned trial Judge. He further submits that in this case the statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC and the defence were completed in the year 2005 and since then the proceeding in the learned Courts below are going on just on the askance of the accused without three being any restraint by this Court on the proceedings. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments advanced at the bar and carefully gone through the orders passed by the learned Courts below. 6. The application, which was filed by. the petitioner under Section 5 of the Evidence Act for sending the cheque in question to the handwriting expert, was to the effect that his cheque book containing signed cheques was lost and that the respondent has misutilized the said cheque book after filling in the amount etc., thus examination of the cheque should be done by the handwriting expert. When the accused was examined under Section 13 CrPC, he has stated that the cheque was given in lieu of dues of some other person, which the respondent misutilized. When the accused was examined under Section 13 CrPC, he has stated that the cheque was given in lieu of dues of some other person, which the respondent misutilized. Thus, in the statement under Section 313, CrPC, the stand of the petitioner is entirely different from the stand taken in his application under Section 5 of the Evidence Act. 7. When the complainant was cross-examined by the accused, no suggestion has been put to him regarding the cheque having been lost and having been misutilized by the respondent after finding the same in a lost situation, rather the suggestion, which has been given is that the petitioner gave the cheque in question to respondent Tilak Raj as a guarantee and that Tilak Raj did not return back the cheque despite demand being made therefor. 8. The learned Trial Court has also observed that the petitioner, in his own statement given on oath, on being cross-examined, has admitted that he did not take any action of reporting the loss of his cheque to the police, nor did he intimate the bank about the loss of his cheque-book. 9. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the stand/pleas in relation to the manner in which the cheque was received by the respondent-complainant, which have been taken by the petitioner at different stages of trial, are wholly self-contradictory and thereby the learned Courts below have rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Evidence Act. 10. That apart, by virtue of Section 18 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a holder of the cheque in issue, if the same is not filled-in, is entitled to fill-in the blanks and present to same to his bank. Such filling-in of the blanks does not amount to material alteration, as has been held by this Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Tyagi v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2002 (2) R.Cr.D. 377 (Raj.), wherein a coordinate Bench of this Court observed as follows "Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in Jayantilal v. Zubeda Khanum, AIR 1986 (A) 120. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2 contended that insertion of date on undated cheque does not amount to material alteration and, therefore, the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and is being rightly tried for the said offence by the Trial Court. He has relied on a judgment of Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Bhaskaran Chandrasekharan v. Radhakrishnan, 1998 CrLJ 3228 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Yeshwant Badeve v. Surendra Madhavrao Nighojakar, AIR 2001 SC 1315 = 2009 (1) NIJ 4 (SC)[NOC] . In Bhaskaran Chandrasekharan v. Radhakrishnan (supra), the only question came up for consideration before the Division Bench of Kerala High Court was as to whether insertion of a date of an undated cheque would amount to material alteration within the meaning of Section 38 of the Act? Section 7 of the Act reads as under "87. Material alteration or insertion of a date on undated cheque would not amount to material alteration since holder in due course has got implied authority to do so unless it was otherwise proved by the drawer of cheque." 5. When the issuance of cheque, signature thereon, amount and the name shown in the cheque is admitted by the petitioner, then the burden is entirely on the petitioner defendant to show that cheque was not supported by any consideration. Cheque is an instrument in writing containing unconditional offer signed by the maker directing his specified banker to pay on demand a certain sum of money mentioned thereto to the payee or to the other person or drawer of the instrument. Presumption as to negotiable instrument envisages under Section 118 of the Act which reads as under "118. Cheque is an instrument in writing containing unconditional offer signed by the maker directing his specified banker to pay on demand a certain sum of money mentioned thereto to the payee or to the other person or drawer of the instrument. Presumption as to negotiable instrument envisages under Section 118 of the Act which reads as under "118. Presumption as to negotiable instruments -Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made : (a) of consideration - that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration; (b) as to date - that every negotia He instrument bearing a date was made or drawn on such date; (c) as to time of acceptance - that every accepted within a reasonable time after its date and before its maturity; (d) as to time of transfer - that every transfer of a negotiable instrument was made before its maturity; (e) as to order of endorsements - that the endorsements appearing upon a negotiable instrument were made in the order in which they appear thereon; (f) as to stamp - that a lost promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque was duly stamped; (g) that holder is a holder in due course - that the holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course. Provided that, where the instrument has been obtained from its lawful owner, or from any person in lawful custody thereof, the burden of proving that the holder is a holder in due course lies upon him." 6. In the instant case, there is no dispute with regard to the execution of cheque by the petitioner. Not only this, the petitioner has admitted execution of cheque, the person in whose favour of cheque is drawn and amount mentioned therein. The initial burden is on the non-petitioner No. 2 to prove that cheque was issued by the petitioner. As soon as the execution of cheque :., proved, the rule of presumption as envisaged under Section 118 of the Act comes into play that the said cheque was supported by consideration, thereafter it is for the cheque issuing parties, i.e. the petitioner to show that the cheque, though issued is not supported by valid consideration. 7. As soon as the execution of cheque :., proved, the rule of presumption as envisaged under Section 118 of the Act comes into play that the said cheque was supported by consideration, thereafter it is for the cheque issuing parties, i.e. the petitioner to show that the cheque, though issued is not supported by valid consideration. 7. It was held in Bhaskaran Chandrasekharan's case (supra) that; if alteration is made with the consent of the drawer of the cheque, it may not amount to material alteration, because the holder of the undated cheque has got the implied authority to put the date on the cheque. Once the date is shown on the cheque, the burden is on the drawer of the cheque to prove that the payee had no authority to do so. It was further held that insertion of the date on an undated cheque would not amount to material alteration, since the holder in due course has got implied authority to do so, unless it is otherwise proved by the drawer of the cheque. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been considered counsel for the petitioner has been considered by the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Bhaskaran Chandrasekharan v. Radhakrishnan (supra) and is distinguishable on facts as such it is of no help to the petitioner." 11. Thus, this Court is of the firm opinion that the application filed by the petitioner was misconceived and has been rightly rejected. 12. As stated by the learned counsel for the complainant and as is revealed from the record, after miscellaneous petition was filed in this Court in the year 2008, without there being any stay order in the matter, the proceedings before the Court below are being stalled by the petitioner simply by taking the shield of pendency of the instant miscellaneous petition. 13. It is made clear and a direction is issued that hence forth no Trial Court shall ordinarily abstain from proceeding in a criminal case simply on the basis of an intimation regarding pendency of a petition before the High Court (be it a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC or a revision petition) challenging the proceedings of the Court(s) below. It should be better for the learned Court below to seek clarification from this Court at the -earlier so that the proceedings may not be held-up unnecessarily. It should be better for the learned Court below to seek clarification from this Court at the -earlier so that the proceedings may not be held-up unnecessarily. 14. Since the petitioner has stalled the proceedings in the Courts below by taking resort to dilatory tractics, the instant miscellaneous petition is dismissed while imposing a cost of Rs. 3000/- (Rupess three thousand) on the petitioner. The petitioner shall submit the cost of Rs. 3000/- with the learned Court below for being "ep sited with the State Legal Services Authority. The stay petition also stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******