JUDGMENT : S. K. SAHOO, J. 1. The petitioners have filed this application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned order dated 06.01.2012 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in I.C.C. No.273 of 2010 in rejecting the petition filed by the petitioners for sending Exts.3 to 5 and Exts.9/1 and 9/2 to the handwriting expert along with admitted writings of the complainant and the accused persons with a direction to make examination of the question documents and to submit the report. Though another petition was filed by the petitioners for summoning I.C.C. of Keonjhar police station to produce S.D. Entry No.148 dated 29.07.2009 and to issue summon to the Post Master, G.P.O. to proof the delivery of the letter dated 18.11.2009 to Nihar Ranjan Patnaik and the said petition was also rejected but the learned counsel for the petitioners confined his challenge to the rejection of the petition relating to the sending of the exhibits to the handwriting expert. The factual scenario of the case indicates that the opposite party is the complainant in I.C.C. Case No.273 of 2010 and the petitioners are the accused persons the complaint petition was filed for prosecuting the accused persons under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act case. 2. During course of trial on 23.12.2011 a petition was filed by the petitioners to send the Exts.3 to 5 as well as Exts.9/1 and 9/2 to the handwriting experts for examination. It is the case of the petitioners that Exts.3 to 5 were the blank cheques which were handed over to the complainant on good faith for use of the same whenever required by the petitioners for the purpose of their business at Bhubaneswar as they were residing at Keonjhar but the cheques were misutilized by the complainant by filling up the blank entries in the cheque and mentioning the date and amount. It is the case of the petitioners that the admitted signatures on the cheque the petitioners is required to be compared with the handwriting mentioned in the body of the cheques and that by making such handwriting examination, it can be ascertained that the cheques had not been written by the accused-petitioners who had signed on the same. It is the case of the petitioners that the admitted signatures on the cheque the petitioners is required to be compared with the handwriting mentioned in the body of the cheques and that by making such handwriting examination, it can be ascertained that the cheques had not been written by the accused-petitioners who had signed on the same. It is also contended that Exts.9/1 and 9/2 are the postal acknowledgements which do not bear the handwritings of the accused Dibyendu Pattnaik and Subendu Pattnaik and therefore, the admitted handwriting of those two co-accused persons with the handwriting on the receipt portion of the AD is required to be compared. The prayer was opposed to by the complainant, inter alia on the ground that there was no necessity to send the above documents to the handwriting expert for comparison and report. The learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar after taking note of the contentions raised by the respective parties has been pleased to hold that whereas the complainants claim is that the cheque in competent form containing the signature of accused Dibyendu Pattnaik had been given to the complainant to discharge their legally enforceable date but on perusal of the cheques it appears that accused Dibyendu Pattnaik has again initial signature on all the cheques i.e. Exts.3 to 5 and therefore, it is not possible to make comparison of the initials with the details of handwriting appearing on the other parts of the cheques. The learned Magistrate further held that the chance of writing of the cheques by somebody and thereafter putting of the signature of the account holder cannot be ruled out and it is the burden on the accused persons to establish their plea regarding issuance of blank cheque by adducing evidence. The learned Magistrate further held that the examination of the contents of the cheques with the initial signature of accused Dibyendu Pattnaik is nowhere has the Court for proper adjudication of the dispute. So far as Exts.9/1 and 9/2 are concerned, those were the postal acknowledgments cards which were received by the accused persons with reference to the notice issued by the complainant vide postal receives Ext.8 and 8/1. So far as Exts.9/1 and 9/2 are concerned, those were the postal acknowledgments cards which were received by the accused persons with reference to the notice issued by the complainant vide postal receives Ext.8 and 8/1. The notices had been given in the correct address of the accused persons has mentioned in the complaint master role Ext.1 and therefore, the examination of those Ads by the handwriting expert will in no way held the Court for proper adjudication of the dispute. Accordingly the petition filed by the accused persons for sending the EXts.3 to 5 and 9/1 and 9/2 was rejected. 3. None appears on behalf of the opposite party. 4. Mr. Abhinash Barik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that when a specific plea has been taken by the accused persons that on good faith the blank signed cheque was kept with the complainant which was misutilized by him and the date and amount has been filled up by the complainant in Exts.3 to 5 in the interest of justice the cheques should have been sent to the handwriting expert for comparison with the admitted handwritings of the complainant and the accused persons and by refusing to entertain such prayer has cost prejudice to the petitioners. It is further contended that when it is the case of the petitioners that the accused persons are not residing in the address given in the postal Ads and some other persons have received the notice and put the signatures in their names and the signatures appearing on the postal Ads were not that of the accused persons, the learned Magistrate should not have rejected the petition for sending the Exts.9/1 and 9/2 to the handwriting expert with the admitted signature of the accused persons for comparison. 5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners one thing is clear that the accused persons that are not disputing that the signatures which are appearing in Exts.3, 4 and 5 are that of accused Dibyendu Pattnaik but they are disputing that the date and the amount which has been reflected in Exts.3, 4 and 5 are not that of either accused Dibyendu Pattnaik or of any other accused and those were filled up by the complainant. In view of such specific stand taken by the accused persons in the interest of justice it is necessary that there should have been a direction for examination of the other writings apart from the signatures which is appearing in the cheques Exts.3, 4 and 5 with the admitted handwritings of the accused persons as well as the complainant in order to ascertain the truth. After obtaining the handwriting expert opinion the learned Magistrate could have assist the oral evidence as well as documentary evidence in order to find out the truth whether the case of the complainant that he was handed over signed cheque Exts.3, 4 and 5 in a completed form is correct or the plea taken by the accused persons that it was a blank cheque given to the complainant on good faith which has been misutilized by the complainant is correct up course law is well settled that the report of handwriting expert is not the conclusive proof it is after all an opinion evidence and it should be supported by reasons and the Court has to evaluate the same like any other evidence. It is for the Court to Judge whether the opinion has been correctly reached on the data available or not by not entertaining the prayer of the accused persons in not sending the Exts.3 to 5, the learned Magistrate has prevented the accused persons in proving their defence plea in a better manner. Similarly, it is contended that the signatures appearing as recipient of the notice in the postal Ads Exts.9/1 and 9/2 are not that of the accused persons and they are residing at Keonjhar and somebody else has put their signatures, it was very much necessary to send Exts.9/1 and 9/2 to the handwriting expert for its comparison with the admitted signatures of the accused persons. The learned Magistrate since to have not kept the valuable purpose which is behind the filing of the petition for sending the exhibits to the handwriting expert. The observation that by sending the exhibits to the handwriting expert, it is no way help to the Court for proper adjudication of the dispute is a predetermination of the case and therefore, I am of the humble view that the impugned order dated 06.01.2012 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6. The observation that by sending the exhibits to the handwriting expert, it is no way help to the Court for proper adjudication of the dispute is a predetermination of the case and therefore, I am of the humble view that the impugned order dated 06.01.2012 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar is directed to send the Exts.3 to 5 and 9/1 and 9/2 to the handwriting expert. As prayed for by the accused persons along with the admitted writings of the complainant and the accused persons as well as the signatures of the accused persons for making necessary examination of the question documents and to submit the report as expeditiously as possible. After receipt of the handwriting expert report, the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar shall proceed with the case in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the CRLMC application is allowed.