Judgment: D.K. Paliwal, J. 1. This petition has been preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the order passed by Special Jude, Vidisha in Cri. Revision No. 16/2014, whereby the order passed by JMFC, Vidisha in Cri. Case No. 178/2009 on 16.12.2013 rejecting the application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, has been dismissed. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that respondent has filed a private complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that petitioner has taken a loan of Rs. Twenty lacs and gave a cheque. When the cheque was submitted for encashment it was dishonoured. The petitioner has submitted an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act at the defence stage stating that he has not taken Rs. Twenty lacs as alleged by the complainant. He has given the cheque of Rs. Two lacs. After adding one zero in Rs. Two lacs the figure has been made Rs. Twenty lacs. There is a difference of handwriting and age of the "zero", therefore, it was prayed that it should be examined by the handwriting expert. The prayer was opposed by the respondent. The learned trial Court has rejected the prayer against which criminal revision was preferred, which has also been rejected vide order dated 6.3.2014. Being aggrieved this petition has been preferred. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and against the settled provisions of law. It is further submitted that there is a difference in the handwriting and by the naked eyes it can be seen that one zero has been added after figure of Rs. 2,00,000/-, therefore, the learned trial Court ought to have sent the disputed cheque for the purpose of forensic examination. If the petitioner is deprived of an opportunity to get the impugned cheque examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory, then prejudice would be caused to the petitioner and it would amount to denial of fair trial, hence prayed that the order be quashed and prayer of the petitioner be allowed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned order and submitted that no illegality has been committed by the Courts below, hence no interference is called for. 5. In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the record. 6. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned order and submitted that no illegality has been committed by the Courts below, hence no interference is called for. 5. In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the record. 6. It is not disputed that the cheque has been given by the petitioner to the respondent. The disputed cheque reveals that in the words Rs. Twenty lacs and in figures Rs. "2,00,0000/"- has been mentioned. In this figure last "zero" is smaller in size in comparison to remaining zeros. From the copy of the statement of the respondent, it appears that in para 15 respondent has stated that cheque was not filled in his presence and he cannot say that the filled cheque was handed over to him by the applicant. 7. Considering that respondent has admitted that he gave the disputed cheque a presumption arises under Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheque had been issued by the signatory after filling it properly. However, in the instant case the contention of the petitioner is that he has given a cheque of Rs. Two lacs only, and by forgery one more "Zero" has been added making the amount twenty lacs. It is also stated that the name of the firm and amount in words has also not been filled up by the petitioner. 8. Fair trial is the fundamental right of the accused. If the accused is deprived of adducing evidence in his defence it would amount denial of fair trial to him. 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T. Nagappa Vs. Y.R. Murlidhar, reported in 2008 AIR SCW 3349, wherein the age of writing of the cheque as well as the signature of the accused were in dispute it was directed that disputed cheque be examined by some handwriting expert so that age of both the writing can be ascertained. It was observed as under.:- The learned trial Judge as also the High Court rejected the contention of the appellant only having regard to the provisions of Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It was observed as under.:- The learned trial Judge as also the High Court rejected the contention of the appellant only having regard to the provisions of Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The very fact that by reason thereof, only a prima facie right had been conferred upon the holder of the negotiable instrument and the same being subject to the conditions as noticed hereinbefore, we are of the opinion that the application filed by the appellant was bona fide. The issue now almost stands concluded by a decision of this Court in Kalyani Baskar (Mrs.) Vs. M.S. Sampoornam (Mrs.), reported in (2002) 2 SCC 258, wherein it was held:- 12. Section 243(2) is clear that a Magistrate holding an inquiry under Cr.P.C. in respect of an offence triable by him does not exceed his powers under Section 243(2) if, in the interest of justice, he directs to send the document for enabling the same to be compared by a handwriting expert to compare the disputed signature or writing with the admitted writing or signature of the accused and to reach his own conclusion with the assistance of the expert. The appellant is entitled to rebut the case of the respondent and if the document viz. the cheque on which the respondent has relied upon for initiating criminal proceedings against the appellant would furnish good material for rebutting that case, the Magistrate having declined to send the document for the examination and opinion of the handwriting expert has deprived the appellant an opportunity of rebutting it. The appellant cannot be convicted without an opportunity being given to her to present her evidence and if it is denied to her, there is no fair trial. "Fair trial" includes fair and proper opportunities allowed by law to prove her innocence. Adducing evidence in support of the defense is a valuable right. Denial of that right means denial of fair trial. It is essential that rules of procedure designed to ensure justice should be scrupulously followed, and the Courts should be jealous in seeing that there is no breach of them. 10. Adducing evidence in support of the defense is a valuable right. Denial of that right means denial of fair trial. It is essential that rules of procedure designed to ensure justice should be scrupulously followed, and the Courts should be jealous in seeing that there is no breach of them. 10. However, it is not necessary to have any expert opinion on the question other than the following: Whether the writings appearing in the said cheque on the front page is written on the same day and time the said cheque was signed as "T. Nagappa" on the front page as well as on the reverse, or in other words, whether the age of the writing on Ex. P/2 on the front page in the same as that of the signature "T. Nagappa" appearing on the front as well as on the reverse of the cheque Ex. P/2? 10. In the case in hand considering that petitioner has stated that he gave a cheque of Rs. two lacs only and by adding one more zero by forgery the amount has been made twenty lacs in my considered opinion both the Courts below have committed grave error in disallowing the prayer made by the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable. The revision petition deserves to be allowed. 11. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed. The learned trial Court is directed to ensure that the disputed cheque be examined by the handwriting expert with a view to ascertain the age of the writings on the disputed cheque as to whether last zero in the amount in figures is of the same period or of different period. The cost of the handwriting expert will be borne by the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to deposit the requisite fee within fifteen days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.