JUDGMENT 1. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. The petitioner is the accused in S.T.C. No. 584/2011, pending before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Kopargaon. The case is in respect of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The respondent no.1 herein is the complainant in the said case. The trial is in progress. The affidavit of the respondent no. 1, in lieu of evidence in examination in chief, has been filed. 3. After the affidavit of evidence had been filed, the petitioner made an application (Exhibit 29) before the Magistrate, contending that the handwriting and signature on the cheque in question, was not of the petitioner, and that, it was necessary to send the cheque to an expert for opining about the handwriting and signature thereon. This application was rejected by the learned Magistrate by his order dated 10th May 2013. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition. 4. The petitioner has taken a specific contention that, the handwriting and the signature on the cheque in question, is not of his. Whether the cheque has been signed by him, would obviously be relevant in the prosecution of the petitioner. Therefore, the opinion of an expert on this aspect cannot be prevented from being given in evidence. 5. The learned Counsel for the respondent no.1, however, contended that it is not necessary to seek any opinion with respect to the handwriting on the cheque. He submitted that once the question of signature would be decided, it would be immaterial as to in whose handwriting the matter in the cheque is written. 6. It is not possible to accept this contention. As to who has written the matter on the cheque, also would be relevant, depending on the facts of the case. It would not be relevant only where a complainant agrees that the same has been written by him, and that, the accused had given only a blank signed cheque to him. When such is not the case, the identity of writing on the cheque also would be relevant. What would be the effect of the conclusion, if it is arrived at, that 'the cheque is not in the handwriting of the accused', would depend on the facts of each case. 7. When such is not the case, the identity of writing on the cheque also would be relevant. What would be the effect of the conclusion, if it is arrived at, that 'the cheque is not in the handwriting of the accused', would depend on the facts of each case. 7. The learned Magistrate refused to send the cheque to the handwriting expert on the ground that 'Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act authorises that payee or holder in due course to complete an incomplete negotiable instrument'. These observations appear to be based on imagination, as it does not appear to be the case of the respondent no.1, ' that an incomplete negotiable instrument was given to him which was completed by him'. In any case, once the cheque is required to be sent to the handwriting expert, with respect to his opinion as regards signature thereon, there is absolutely no justification for preventing the expert from opining about the other handwriting on the cheque, also. 8. The impugned order amounts to preventing the petitioner from obtaining and adducing evidence in his defence. It amounts to denying him an effective and sufficient opportunity of defending himself. 9. However, I find that the application to send the cheque to the handwriting expert was made at the stage when the evidence of the complainant was still going on. Though I am inclined to allow the petition, it would be necessary to clarify certain aspects of the matter to avoid delay in holding the trial. 10. The petition is allowed. (a) The impugned order dated 10th May 2013 is set aside. The learned Magistrate shall allow the application - Exhibit 29 - on the condition that the petitioner deposits an appropriate amount in the court of the Magistrate, towards the necessary expenses, including the fee of the expert. (b) It is made clear that, this shall not prevent the Magistrate from insisting on the petitioner proceeding with the cross examination of the respondent no.1 and his witnesses, if any, produced before the Magistrate. (c) The learned Magistrate shall expedite the trial and endeavour to complete it as early as possible. 11. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.