Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioner / petitioner / accused has preferred the present revision in Crl.R.C.No.235 of 2012, against the order made in C.M.P.No.1382 of 2011 in C.C.No.308 of 2009, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Erode. 2. The respondent / complainant's case is as follows:- The complainant is doing business in Dyes and Chemicals in the name and style of "Jubilant Tex Chem." and is the Proprietor of the said firm. The accused is doing business in Dyeing under the name and style of "Rajathi Textiles" and is the Proprietor. The accused requested the complainant to supply dyes and chemicals on credit and he promised to pay the value of the goods to be purchased on credit within a week or 10 days and the complainant had agreed to this request. In the course of such purchases, made by the accused, on credit basis, from the complainant, a sum of Rs.45,080/-was payable as dues by the accused to the complainant as on 20.10.2008. On demand made by the complainant, the accused in order to discharge the said debt had issued two post dated cheques on 15.11.2008, viz., cheque Nos.060745 and 060744 dated 19.11.2008 and 20.11.2008, respectively, drawn on Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited, Pallipalayam Branch for a sum of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.25,080/-respectively, to and in favour of the complainant. The complainant presented the cheque dated 19.11.2008 for encashment with his bankers, on 20.11.2008 and presented the other cheque dated 20.11.2008 for encashment with his bankers on 21.11.2008 However, both the cheques were returned dishonoured with an endorsement of "exceeds arrangement". The complainant re-presented the said cheques on 22.11.2008 and 24.11.2008 with his bankers, but it was again returned unpaid with an endorsement of "exceeds arrangement". When the complainant re-presented the said cheques for collection, through his bankers, viz., Axis Bank Limited, Erode Branch on 02.05.2009, the said cheques were returned unpaid, with an endorsement as "account closed" through return memos. 3. The complainant sent a lawyer's notice to the accused on 08.05.2009, which was received by the accused. The accused sent a reply notice dated 28.05.1999 stating that the accused had purchased chemical components worth of Rs.69,343/- on credit basis and issued five post dated blank cheques and that as he was not able to run the business, and pay the amount, he had returned all the goods purchased. 4. The accused sent a reply notice dated 28.05.1999 stating that the accused had purchased chemical components worth of Rs.69,343/- on credit basis and issued five post dated blank cheques and that as he was not able to run the business, and pay the amount, he had returned all the goods purchased. 4. Subsequently, the complainant had filed a complaint against the accused for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the Judicial Magistrate-II, Erode and it was taken on file as C.C.No.308 of 2009. 5. Subsequently, the accused had filed a petition in C.M.P.No.1382 of 2011 under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act stating that he had never issued any cheque to the complainant and that the complainant had forged the signature of the accused herein and filed the complaint. Hence, the accused has prayed the Court for a direction to send the cheque along with the admitted signature of the petitioner / accused to the finger print expert, i.e., the Director of Forensic and Finger Print Bureau, Beach Road, Chennai, for comparison and opinion regarding the genuineness of the signature found in the cheque. 6. The respondent / complainant had filed a counter denying the averments made in the petition filed by the accused. It was stated that the accused had sent a reply notice dated 28.05.2009, wherein he had admitted the transaction which had taken place between him and the complainant and also admitted the issuance of post dated cheques. It was submitted that the accused had not stated that he had not issued the cheques to the complainant in his reply notice. It was submitted that the accused appeared before the Court on 23.10.2009 and later questioned. The trial of the case was started and P.W.1 was examined. The accused did not make any attempt for cross-examining P.W.1. Finally, the evidence on the side of the complainant was closed on 14.07.2010. Subsequently, after questioning, the accused was granted sufficient time for examining defence witnesses. It was submitted that the present petition was filed after more than a year and has been filed only to drag on the proceedings. Hence, it was prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. The case was taken up for final hearing on 4th January 2012. Subsequently, after questioning, the accused was granted sufficient time for examining defence witnesses. It was submitted that the present petition was filed after more than a year and has been filed only to drag on the proceedings. Hence, it was prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. The case was taken up for final hearing on 4th January 2012. The learned Magistrate on scrutiny of Ex.P8, reply notice sent by the accused, observed that the petitioner / accused had admitted the business transactions which existed between him and the complainant. It was stated in the reply notice that the petitioner / accused, in order to discharge the dues of Rs.69,343/-to the complainant, had issued five blank signed post dated cheques, drawn on Lakhsmi Vilas Bank, Pallipalayam Branch and that even after payment of the said dues, the complainant had refused to return the blank cheques to the complainant and foisted a false case. However, the learned Magistrate, on observing that the accused had already admitted his signature in the said blank post dated cheques issued by him to the complainant opined that there was no necessity for sending cheques to an handwriting expert. Hence, the learned Magistrate, on holding that the petition does not have any merits, dismissed the petition. 8. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his petition, the petitioner / accused has preferred the present revision. 9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the Courts below failed to note that in Section 138 Proceedings, the burden is cast upon the accused to prove his innocence and to confront the allegations levelled against him, and as such the Court ought to have allowed the application. It was contended that a fair and reasonable opportunity should be given to the petitioner to prove his defense. 10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has cited the following judgment in support of his contentions:- R.Lakshminathan Vs. It was contended that a fair and reasonable opportunity should be given to the petitioner to prove his defense. 10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has cited the following judgment in support of his contentions:- R.Lakshminathan Vs. K.Senthilkumar reported in 2010 (3) MWN (Cr.) DCC 94 "NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881, (26 of 1881), Section 138 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 243(2) -EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 (1 of 1872) Section 45 - Evidence for defence -Defence taken by accused during trial that his signature in cheque was forged -Petition file to send cheque for examination by Handwriting Expert - Dismissed on ground that such a defence not taken in Reply Notice and that Petition filed to drag on trial proceeding -Revision against, dismissed by Lower Appellate Court on same ground - Petition against -Held, Petitioner has a right to rebut case of Complainant by sending document for examination by Handwriting Expert - Denial of such right amounts to denial of fair trial -A fair trial request should have been allowed in exercise of power under Section 243(2), Cr.P.C. (SC followed) - Magistrate directed to send cheque with admitted signature to Handwriting Expert for opinion." 11. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the accused had received legal notice before filing the complaint, on 08.05.2009. The same was received by him on 28.05.2009. Thereafter, the accused was questioned about his guilt, on 23.10.2009. He denied that he was guilty. Thereafter, the complainant was examined and his side evidence was closed. Subsequently, as an afterthought, the accused has filed the petition for opinion of handwriting expert, after a lapse of two years. The learned counsel further submitted that the accused in order to drag on the proceedings had filed the said petition. 12. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned order of the trial Court, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the said order since the learned Magistrate had assigned valid reasons for dismissing the said petition which had been filed by the accused for getting an opinion from handwriting expert. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said impugned order. This Court further directs the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Erode, to dispose the main case on topmost priority basis. 13. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said impugned order. This Court further directs the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Erode, to dispose the main case on topmost priority basis. 13. Resultantly, the above revision is dismissed. Consequently, the order passed in C.M.P.No.1382 of 2011 in C.C.No.308 of 2009, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Erode, dated 04.01.2012 is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Accordingly ordered.