JUDGMENT : Suvra Ghosh, J. The revisional application is directed against order dated 17-12-2018 passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th court, Calcutta in complaint Case No. 8945 of 2010 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. There was a business transaction between the parties and in course of such transaction, the petitioner allegedly issued an account payee cheque in favour of the opposite party in discharge of legally enforceable debt/liability on receipt of goods from the latter. The said cheque was dishonoured on being presented before the bank for which the opposite party lodged a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act of 1881. The petitioner claimed to have handed over a signed blank security cheque to the opposite party in 2007 and alleged that such cheque was fraudulently converted by the opposite party into the impugned cheque. The petitioner filed an application before the learned trial court praying for appointment of handwriting expert to assess whether the amount written in words and figures in the cheque and also the date endorsed therein were filled up contemporaneously with the signature and writing of the petitioner therein. The said application was considered and rejected by the trial court and the present revision has been preferred challenging the said order. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that he handed over a signed blank cheque with the name of the opposite party company written therein as security in the year 2007 which was subsequently converted as the impugned cheque by the opposite party in 2010. The security cheque was drawn on UTI bank which merged with Axis bank in 2008 and there was no occasion to draw a cheque on UTI bank in 2010 as claimed by the opposite party. The opposite party admitted receiving a security cheque from the petitioner and having it in its custody but failed to produce the same before the court. The petitioner alleged that though the blank security was issued in 2007, the amount of Rs. 7,48,474/- written in words and figures was incorporated therein along with the date 15-01- 2010 subsequently. Such discord between the handwriting of the petitioner in the cheque and the disputed insertion could, according to the petitioner, be assessed by an expert. The petitioner alleged that though the blank security was issued in 2007, the amount of Rs. 7,48,474/- written in words and figures was incorporated therein along with the date 15-01- 2010 subsequently. Such discord between the handwriting of the petitioner in the cheque and the disputed insertion could, according to the petitioner, be assessed by an expert. The petitioner also submits that the number of the security cheque and the impugned cheque is identical and it is the security cheque which has been converted into the impugned cheque. The petitioner, therefore, prays for a direction upon the trial court to send the impugned cheque to the handwriting expert to ascertain whether the amount and date written therein was at the same time as the signature of the petitioner and the name of the complainant company. 4. The opposite party vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submitted that in view of Section 49 of the Act of 1881, it was well within the jurisdiction of the opposite party to fill up the incomplete cheque and present it for encashment. There was no due from the petitioner to the opposite party till 2007 and the business transaction between the parties continued even after that. The number of the impugned cheque differs from that of the security cheque issued previously and the impugned cheque has no nexus with the blank security cheque. The petitioner is at liberty to adduce evidence before the trial court in order to rebut the presumption of offence against him. Two revisional applications preferred by the petitioner previously were considered and dismissed by this court and the application for appointment of expert has been carried by the petitioner only to protract the proceedings and defeat the ends of justice. 5. Two revisional applications preferred by the petitioner previously were considered and dismissed by this court and the application for appointment of expert has been carried by the petitioner only to protract the proceedings and defeat the ends of justice. 5. It transpires from the documents produced by the petitioner that the petitioner filed a revisional application, being CRR No. 2041 of 2011, praying for quashing the proceedings of the complaint case and the said application was disposed of by a co-ordinate bench of this court with liberty to the petitioner "to take out an application taking all the points which he has taken in this revisional application before learned court below and fight out the matter on merit." It further appears that a second revisional application was preferred by the petitioner, being CRR No. 3936 of 2015, praying for a direction upon the opposite party to produce the blank cheque before the trial court. Such revisional application was also dismissed by this court. 6. In the present case, the petitioner has prayed for appointment of an expert to ascertain the age of the signature and contents of the impugned cheque. Therefore the ratio of the orders passed in the earlier revisional applications can be distinguished from the factual matrix of the instant case. 7. It is envisaged in Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872 that "When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting [or finger impressions], the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, [or in questions as to identity of handwriting] [or finger impressions] are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts." 8. It is also necessary to go through the provision laid down under Section 49 of the Act of 1881, for the purpose of this case. The said provision is set out:- "Conversion of indorsement in blank into indorsement in full.- The holder of a negotiable instrument indorsed in blank may, without signing his own name, by writing above the indorser's signature a direction to pay to any other person as indorsee, convert the indorsement in blank into an indorsement in full; and the holder does not thereby incur the responsibility of an indorser." 9. It is explained in Section 49 of the Act that though admission of the signature of the drawer of the cheque is significant, that cannot be understood to mean that such admission of signature is synonymous with execution of the cheque. Such admission may permit presumption of fact under Section 114 of the Evidence Act but does not take away the right of the accused to allege that a blank signed cheque was mis-utilized by the payee. 10. In the case in hand, the petitioner is admittedly a dealer having regular and continuous business transactions with the opposite party. It is further admitted that till 28-12-2007, there was no due from the petitioner towards the opposite party. Sanjay Singh, the representative of the opposite party, who adduced evidence before the trial court, admitted that a blank signed cheque of UTI bank, Bolpur branch was issued by the petitioner containing the name of the opposite party company and the signature of the petitioner. The said blank cheque was handed over to this witness and appears to be in his custody since 2008. So the contention of the petitioner that such blank cheque bearing the name of the opposite party company and the signature of the petitioner was handed over to the opposite party in the later part of 2007 is virtually admitted by the opposite party. 11. The impugned account payee cheque for an amount of Rs. 7,48,474/- was allegedly issued on 15-01-2010, the opposite party urging that such cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability and the petitioner alleging that the blank cheque issued previously was converted into the impugned cheque. The number of the impugned cheque is 059649 and the petitioner claims that the blank security cheque also bears the same number, such fact not being disputed or denied by the opposite party. The opposite party stated before the trial court that till 28-12-2007 the opposite party company received a cheque amounting to Rs. 2,52,000/- drawn on UTI bank and the relevant cheque number was 59648. The witness cannot recall whether the number of the blank cheque was 59649 or was drawn on UTI bank. The opposite party stated before the trial court that till 28-12-2007 the opposite party company received a cheque amounting to Rs. 2,52,000/- drawn on UTI bank and the relevant cheque number was 59648. The witness cannot recall whether the number of the blank cheque was 59649 or was drawn on UTI bank. Pausing here for a moment, as the cheque number 59648 was admittedly issued in 2007, it is highly inconceivable that the next cheque bearing number 59649 was issued only in the year 2010 despite regular business transaction being continued between the parties. It is more probable that the subsequent cheque bearing number 59649 was issued sometime in late 2007 as claimed by the petitioner. The impugned cheque dated 15-01-2010 was drawn on UTI bank whereas it is the case of the petitioner that the said bank merged with Axis bank in 2008 and ceased to exist independently on the date of issuance of the impugned cheque. 12. It is needless to mention that a cheque which is duly signed by the payer and handed over to the payee attracts the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Act of 1881 and it is immaterial where the contents of the cheque is written by the drawer himself. Whether the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability is also a matter of trial. Nevertheless, when admittedly a blank signed cheque bearing the name of the opposite party company was issued by the petitioner, the petitioner is not precluded from contending that the said cheque was subsequently mis-utilized and converted into an account payee cheque exhibiting an exorbitant and fictitious amount. 13. Reliance has been placed by the petitioner upon the judicial authority in T. Nagappa v/s. Y.R. Muralidhar, 2008 AIR(SC) 2010. Relevant portions of the judgment are required to be set out :- "When a contention has been raised that the complainant has misused the cheque, even in a case where a presumption can be raised under Section 118 (a) or 139 of the said Act, an opportunity must be granted to the accused for adducing evidence in rebuttal thereof. As the law places the burden on the accused, he must be given an opportunity to discharge it." 14. As the law places the burden on the accused, he must be given an opportunity to discharge it." 14. "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 when 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. P2 on the front page is the same as that of the signature "T. Nagappa" appearing on the front as well as on the reverse of the Cheque Ex. P2?" 15. The ratio of the said judgment is squarely applicable in the factual scenario of the present case. Admittedly the signature in the cheque belongs to the petitioner and also the name of the opposite party company was written therein by him. The petitioner contends that the date and amount inserted in the cheque were done at a later date beyond the knowledge or consent of the petitioner. As such, the age of such writing needs to be compared and assessed. 16. In the petition before the trial court, the prayer of the petitioner was twofold :- "(a) Whether signature of the drawer and name of the complainant company in block letters and the writing on the body of the impugned Cheque No. 059649, exhibit No. 2 as to amount to the tune of Rs. seven lakhs forty eight thousand four hundred and seventy four written in word, and figures and date 15-01-2010 have been written and filled up contemporaneously or on the same time, day or not by the signatory of the impugned Cheque, exhibit 2? (b) Whether the writings on the body of the impugned Cheque No. 059649 of UTI Bank, Bolpur, exhibit No. 2 and signature on the said impugned Cheque, exhibit No. 2 are by the same person?" 17. Prayer (b) is redundant as it is immaterial whether the contents of the impugned cheque were written by the petitioner who admittedly signed thereon. With regard to prayer (a), whether the body of the impugned cheque was filled up by the signatory of the cheque does not require consideration. Prayer (b) is redundant as it is immaterial whether the contents of the impugned cheque were written by the petitioner who admittedly signed thereon. With regard to prayer (a), whether the body of the impugned cheque was filled up by the signatory of the cheque does not require consideration. What requires consideration is whether the amount and date appearing in the cheque were written contemporaneously with the name of the company and the signature of the petitioner therein or were written subsequently, may be after lapse of about two years, thereby converting the blank cheque issued as security to the impugned cheque. Receipt of the blank cheque being admitted by the opposite party, appointment of an expert is necessary to ascertain whether the signature in the cheque and the name of the opposite party company were done/written contemporaneously with the amount in words and figures and date 15-01-2010 written therein. The said issue raised by the petitioner is required to be answered by appointment of an expert in order to facilitate the petitioner to defend his cause and for the purpose of fair trial. 18. To sum up, the blank security cheque containing the signature of the petitioner and the name of the opposite party company was admittedly issued by the petitioner in favour of the opposite party and was in custody of the latter from 2008. The impugned cheque was allegedly issued on 15-01-2010 and bears such date as well as an amount in words and figures. The story would have been otherwise if no such blank cheque was issued or received earlier. In the present case, as issuance of the impugned cheque on 15-01-2010 is under challenge and a question has arisen as to whether the amount and the date in the cheque were written contemporaneously with the signature of the petitioner and the name of the opposite party company therein, such question cannot be addressed by the court despite the fact that the court is an expert of all experts, and appointment of a scientific expert specialised in the subject is necessary. 19. It is a fact that the case before the trial court is pending from 2010 and it is submitted by the opposite party that date has been fixed before the trial court for examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code. 19. It is a fact that the case before the trial court is pending from 2010 and it is submitted by the opposite party that date has been fixed before the trial court for examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code. But at the same time, the accused/petitioner cannot be deprived of the opportunity to rebut the case made out by the complainant/opposite party and it shall be unfair and unjust to arrive at a conclusion without affording proper opportunity to the petitioner to prove his innocence. 20. In the result, the order impugned is set aside. 21. The learned trial court is directed to take necessary steps for appointment of a handwriting expert for the purpose of determining whether the amount of Rs. 7,48,474/- written in words and figures in the cheque and date 15-01-2010 were written/filled up contemporaneously with the signature of the petitioner and name of the opposite party company in the said cheque. The learned trial court should assess the cost for such appointment, which shall be deposited by the petitioner before the trial court within a week of such assessment. The trial court is requested to ensure that the entire exercise is completed within a reasonable period and no unnecessary delay is caused in disposal of the case. 22. Crr 567 of 2019 is disposed of accordingly. 23. Urgent certified website photocopies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance with the usual formalities.