JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is by the appellant-complainant being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dated 24.7.2010 passed by the XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, acquitting the respondent-accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C. No. 5301/2008. 2. Brief facts of the case of the appellant-complainant before the Court below is that the complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the respondent- accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 3. The gist of the complaint is that the complainant and the accused were well known to each other and the accused was a real estator by profession. The accused, in order to meet his business requirements, approached the complainant and sought for hand loan of Rs. 25.00 lakh. 4. That the complainant in order to help the friend in need tried to lend the said amount but could mobilise only Rs. 18,00,000/- and offered the said amount to the accused as hand loan on 5.6.2007. The accused duly acknowledged the receipt of the said amount before the witness and promised to repay the same within three months. The accused issued a cheque towards discharge of the said amount vide cheque No. 239037 dated 5.6.2007 for a sum of Rs. 18,50,000/- drawn in favour of the appellant-complainant drawn on Corporation Bank, Nagarabhavi Branch, Bengaluru. The complainant presented the said cheque for encashment on 4.12.2007 through his banker Maharastra SSI Branch, Bengaluru for collection. That the said cheque dishonoured with a bank endorsement funds insufficient. The fact of dishonour of cheque came to the notice of the complainant on 4.12.2007 through his bankers. The complainant issued the notice to the respondent on 22.12.2007 well within the period of 30 days from the date of knowledge of dishonour of the cheque. The said notice was sent to the respondent-accused through RPAD and COP. The respondent received the said notice, but failed to pay the amount covered under the instrument within the stipulated period and even he did not send reply to the said notice. Then the complainant filed the private complaint and in response to the summons issued, the respondent-accused appeared before the trial Court and the trial was conducted. 5. On the side of the complainant, two witnesses were examined as PWs. Then the complainant filed the private complaint and in response to the summons issued, the respondent-accused appeared before the trial Court and the trial was conducted. 5. On the side of the complainant, two witnesses were examined as PWs. 1 and 2 and the documents Exs.P.1 to P.8 were got marked. On the side of the defence, two witnesses were examined as DWs. 1 and 2 and the documents Exs.D.1 to D.6 were got marked. After hearing both sides, ultimately, the Court below acquitted the accused holding that the complainant has not proved his case beyond reasonable doubt. 6. Being aggrieved by the said order of acquittal, the appellant-complainant is before this Court in this appeal and he has challenged the legality and correctness of the judgment of the Court below on the grounds as mentioned at para nos. 7 to 20 of the appeal memorandum. 7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant. 8. The respondent/accused though served with the notice, remained absent and there is no representation. Sufficient opportunity is given to the respondent to submit his say in the matter. 9. Looking to the original records secured from the trial Court, the first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant before the trial Court is that the document i.e. Cheque (Ex.P2) was referred to the experts opinion and the expert filed the report before the trial Court; the appellant herein filed the objection statement to the said report, in spite of filing such objection statement, the respondent/accused has not taken steps for securing the presence of said Expert to lead the evidence before the trial Court. Hence, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the observation made by the trial Court in paragraph No. 58 of its judgment is perverse and there is no such duty cast on the part of appellant/complainant because the instrument was sent at the instance of respondent/accused to the expert opinion. When that is so, it is for the respondent to take steps before the trial Court for getting the witness summons issued to the said expert and to examine him before the trial Court. Therefore, it is his contention that the said expert has not been examined before the Court below. When that is so, it is for the respondent to take steps before the trial Court for getting the witness summons issued to the said expert and to examine him before the trial Court. Therefore, it is his contention that the said expert has not been examined before the Court below. Therefore, whatever the findings given by the expert, the appellant/complainant was deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the expert on the said aspects and to testify the veracity and the correctness of the findings given by the said expert. Hence, because of this reason, the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Court below suffers from serious infirmity. In this connection, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision reported in ILR 2008 Kar. 1840 in the case of Parappa and Others vs. Bhimappa and Another, wherein, synopsis ‘B’ reads as under: “(B) CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 – ORDER 26 RULE 10(2) – Report and depositions to be evidence in the suit – Admissibility of an expert’s evidence – Criminal and Civil proceedings – HELD, In a Criminal case if the prosecution relies on the expert’s evidence to prove the charges against the accused mere production of the said expert’s report into Court is not sufficient – If the prosecution relies on a report of the expert, not only the report is to be produced, the author of the report is also to be examined in the Court on oath and an opportunity should be given to the accused to cross-examine the said expert on the correctness of the report. It is only then the said evidence becomes admissible and not otherwise – FURTHER HELD, In a civil proceedings when an expert is appointed as a Commissioner by the Court at the instance of one of the parties to the proceedings, the Court may issue commission to such experts for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court – The report of the commissioner/expert prepared and submitted on the orders of the Courts stands on a totally different footing in the matter of admissibility than the report of an expert prepared at the instance of either of the parties of the suit or at the instance of the prosecution in a criminal case – Therefore, the expert becomes a Commissioner only when court appoints him under Order XXVI of the CPC. The expert is only a witness for the prosecution in a criminal case, and a witness for the party who appointed him in civil cases.” 10. Therefore, in view of such submission made and also referring to paragraph Nos. 57 and 58 in the judgment of the trial Court, one thing is clear that the said Expert was not brought before the Court to depose in support of the report, which he has submitted before the Court, and also to give the reasons as to why he arrived at a particular opinion. 11. Looking to this aspect of the matter, I am of the opinion that considering the other merits of the case is not at all necessary at this stage, because the appellant has challenged the very legality of the judgment of the trial Court on one of the important ground of non-examination of the Expert, that too, in a criminal case. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has also drew the attention of this Court to paragraph No. 30 of the judgment of the trial Court and made the submission that the trial Court itself made an observation that DW-1 has admitted that the Cheque in question is his cheque and the signature available in the said cheque is his signature. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant has also drew the attention of this Court to paragraph No. 30 of the judgment of the trial Court and made the submission that the trial Court itself made an observation that DW-1 has admitted that the Cheque in question is his cheque and the signature available in the said cheque is his signature. 13. Therefore, in view of this observation made by the trial Court in paragraph No. 30 and looking to the principle enunciated in the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, am of the clear opinion that matter requires remanding to the concerned trial Court giving an opportunity to both sides that the Expert, who gave the report, is to be examined before the concerned trial Court and after his examination, by giving opportunity to both sides to cross-examine the said Expert and taking into consideration what the Expert is going to depose before the Court, the trial Court has to consider the matter afresh and to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. 14. In view of my above discussion and the legal position, appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 24.07.2010 passed in C.C. No. 5301/2008 by the trial Court is hereby set-aside and the matter is remitted back to the concerned trial Court with a direction that steps are to be taken by the respondent/accused to examine the Expert before the concerned Court, then opportunity has to be given to both sides to cross-examine the said Expert, if there is a need to do so and thereafter taking into consideration the said material the trial Court has to dispose of the matter afresh. 15. Since the case is of the year 2008 and now we are in 2018, it is necessary to fix a time frame to the concerned trial Court to dispose of the matter. Hence, the trial Court has to take up the matter on priority basis and to dispose of the same as early as possible, but not later than six months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. 16. Registry is directed to send the copy of this judgment along with the original records to the concerned Court immediately.