Order : A petition dated 27.6.2014 filed in P.C.R. case no.526 of 2012 by the accused was dismissed by the impugned order dated 15.4.2015 resulting in this revision application. 2. A complaint was filed by Bishwambhar Prasad alleging therein that the accused had taken some friendly loan from him. He further states that on receipt of the amount of friendly loan, the accused executed money receipt on non-judicial stamp and in turn, handed over cheques in lieu of such loan. The complainant further states that when the cheques were deposited in the Bank, same was dishonoured with endorsement “insufficient fund”. The accused was noticed and demand was made to repay the amount but the accused failed to do so, resulting in the instant case lodged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 3. During course of trial, the accused filed a petition stating therein that the money receipts which were issued do not belong to the petitioner and the same was not signed by the petitioner so the same should be sent for examination by an expert. He further mentioned that the cheques which were filed by the complainant marked as Exts. also should be sent to the hand writing expert to prove whether all the writings are by the same person, who executed the cheque or not. Taking these two grounds, he prayed to send the documents for examination by a hand writing expert. 4. The complainant filed his rejoinder stating therein that objection raised by the accused is absolutely frivolous and liable to be dismissed. He further submits that the accused wants to prolong trial which should not be allowed by the court. He further stated that the case is at the fag end and the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has already been recorded and even in the said statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he has not uttered a single word in respect of present claim made by him. Thus, he prays that the application is frivolous. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 6. The accused-petitioner is being tried for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Thus, he prays that the application is frivolous. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 6. The accused-petitioner is being tried for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The petitioner has mentioned that the cheque which were submitted and is the subject matter of the case should be sent to the hand writing expert to see whether the name of the payee and the date of execution of the cheque are written by the same person who has signed the cheque or not. He further prayed for sending money receipt to the hand writing expert. 7. In support of this case, the petitioner has referred to a decision rendered in a case of G.Someshwar Rao vs. Samineni Nageshwar Rao and another [ (2009) 14 SCC 677 ]. Citing the judgment the petitioner tried to impress upon the court that for a fair trial, the document should be sent to the hand writing expert. 8. Counsel for the opposite party in reply submits that the aforesaid judgment cited by the petitioner is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case as because there was a dispute in respect of signature on the cheque in the case decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 9. There is no provision in law which prescribes that a cheque shall be filled up by the drawer himself. In the instant case since the signature of the accused in the cheque is not disputed, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of G.Someshwar Rao vs. Samineni Nageshwar Rao and another (supra) is not applicable in the present case. 10. Further from perusal of the petition filed by the petitioner, it is clear that the petitioner has never disputed the signature and date of execution of the cheque. Since the petitioner has not disputed the signature on the cheque, in my opinion, the cheque can not be sent to the hand writing expert. 11. So far sending money receipt to the hand writing expert is concerned, the court below has found that the accused himself has accepted receiving of the debt from the complainant and this fact has not been denied by the defence. The court below also found that it is also admitted that receipts of cheque were written by the complainant. 11. So far sending money receipt to the hand writing expert is concerned, the court below has found that the accused himself has accepted receiving of the debt from the complainant and this fact has not been denied by the defence. The court below also found that it is also admitted that receipts of cheque were written by the complainant. It is also evident that the witnesses have deposed that the transaction of money had taken place in their presence and this fact has not been denied by defence in cross-examination. The court below also found that no question has been asked by the defence from any witnesses regarding tampering of any Exhibit marked by the complainant. This fact is clearly evident from the impugned order. The court below further went on to hold that there is no tampering of any of the documents. 12. In view of the aforesaid finding, I find no occasion to refer any of the documents to the hand writing expert. The court below has rightly rejected the petition filed by the petitioner dated 27.6.2014. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. 13. Interim order passed on 27.7.2015 stands vacated. 14. Since the accused has already been examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court below is directed to conclude the trial at the earliest without any further delay. Application dismissed.