ORDER : 1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 C r.P.C., calling in question the legality and validity of the order passed on 28.11.2017 rejecting IA No.1 filed under Section 45 of Evidence Act in C.C.No.6 of 2016 by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudalagi. 2. Brief facts are that, the present petitioner is the complainant in proceedings initiated under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, herein after referred` to as N.I. Act) before the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudalagi, which is currently pending in C.C.No.6/2016. The respondent herein is the accused in the said case. The case of the complainant is that, some time prior to 2010, through a series of loan advances made, he had in all given a sum of Rs.2,80,000/-to the respondent and towards repayment of the same, the accused had issued a cheque for Rs.2,80,000/-dated 23.01.2010, which upon presentation before the banker was returned dishonoured. A notice was duly issued by the petitioner herein and respondent issued a reply notice as per Ex.P.8, essentially contending that he had indeed taken loan of Rs.40,000/-in the year 2009 from the complainant and not Rs.2,80,000/-as demanded and he had returned the same after about six months and the petitioner had passed a valid receipt in that behalf which is marked as Ex.D.1 before the learned Court below. 3. It is contended before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his application I.A.1 filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act has been rejected by the learned trial Court on impermissible grounds and therefore, it is liable to be set aside. In this behalf, he submits that the petitioner has denied the signature appearing on Ex.D.1 and, therefore the Court should have allowed the application and referred Ex.D.1 for the examination of an expert to ascertain the genuineness and authenticity of the signature borne on Ex.D1. He submits that this petition is entitled to be allowed and order of the learned Court below on I.A.1 is liable to be set aside and Ex.D.1 referred to an expert for examination of the disputed signature. In this behalf, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India : 1. (2007) 2 SCC 258 – Kalyani Baskar (Mrs.) Vs. M.S. Sampoornam (Mrs.). 2. AIR 2012 SCW 5492 – Ajay Kumar Parmar Vs. In this behalf, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India : 1. (2007) 2 SCC 258 – Kalyani Baskar (Mrs.) Vs. M.S. Sampoornam (Mrs.). 2. AIR 2012 SCW 5492 – Ajay Kumar Parmar Vs. State of Rajasthan. 3. (2008) 5 SCC 633 – T.Nagappa Vs. Y.R. Muralidhar. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent – accused, per contra, submits that not only has the accused – respondent examined himself as D.W.1, he has also examined attestor to Ex.D.1 as D.W.2. Besides, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, the learned Court below has the power and discretion under Section 73 of the Evidence Act to examine the disputed signature by taking some sample signatures of the complainant – petitioner herein in the Court itself and to compare and ascertain whether the disputed signature on Ex.D.1 is that of the complainant himself. It is therefore his submission that the learned Court below was right and justified in rejecting application – I.A.No.1 and therefore, there is no good ground made out to interfere with the same. In this behalf, he places reliance on a decision reported in 1996 CrLJ 3099 (Satish Jayanthilal Shah vs, Pankajj Mashruwala). 5. I have perused the records produced before me by the learned counsel on both sides and also the oral submissions made before me. I have perused the various decisions relied upon by the learned counsel on both sides. 6. There cannot be any dispute about the fact that the accused – respondent herein has not, in essence, denied the loan transaction between the parties. The only point of dispute is as to whether the loan transaction was to the tune of Rs.2,80,000/-or to the tune of Rs.40,000/-.The further dispute is as to whether, if the loan transaction was in the tune of Rs.40,000/-it was repaid by the accused in terms of Ex.D.1, as contended by him before the learned Court below. Ex.P.8 which is a reply notice issued by the accused – respondent shows that he has taken that stance even at the time of issuing reply that loan transaction was essentially to the tune of Rs.40,000/-and had repaid it. 7. Ex.P.8 which is a reply notice issued by the accused – respondent shows that he has taken that stance even at the time of issuing reply that loan transaction was essentially to the tune of Rs.40,000/-and had repaid it. 7. The application filed by the complainant in I.A.No.1 is to refer Ex.D.1 for the purpose of eliciting opinion of expert as to whether disputed signature on Ex.D.1 is that of the complainant or not. Clear stand of the complainant is that he had not signed Ex.D.1 and it is a created document. Learned trial Court has rejected the application merely on the ground that in order to ascertain as to whether Ex.D.1 is a genuine document, there is the oral evidence of P.W.1 who is the complainant, on the one side, and the oral evidence of accused (D.W.1) and D.W.2 who is stated to be the attestor to Ex.D.1. Learned trial Court has also held that, apart from the above evidence, it is open to himself (trial Court) to exercise the power under Section 73 of the Evidence Act and collect sample signatures of the complainant in the Court and compare the same with the disputed signature and form an opinion as to whether it is really the signature of the complainant or not. In my considered opinion, the said exercise of the learned trial Court will not be affected if an expert opinion is sought on the signature that is borne on Ex.D.1 by referring the said document to the examination by expert, along with his admitted and sample signatures. As a matter of fact, the entire case turns on the finding by the trial Court as to whether the signature appearing on Ex.D.1 is that of the complainant or not. Under such circumstances, it is essential that the best and the complete evidence on the aspect as to whether the signature on Ex.D.1 is really that of the complainant or not is obtained by the trial Court. Such an exercise in terms of referring the document to the examination of an expert will not deprive the accused of the opportunity to cross examine such an expert, when the opinion of the expert is obtained and placed before the Court. This view of mine receives support from the following observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Parmar (supra), which is as follows: “23. This view of mine receives support from the following observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Parmar (supra), which is as follows: “23. The opinion of a handwriting expert is fallible/liable to error like that of any other witness, and yet, it cannot be brushed aside as useless. There is no legal bar to prevent the Court from comparing signatures or handwriting, by using its own eyes to compare the disputed writing with the admitted writing and then from applying its own observation to prove the said handwritings to be the same or different, as the case may be but in doing so, the court cannot itself become an expert in this regard and must refrain from playing the role of an expert, for the simple reason that the opinion of the Court may also not be conclusive. Therefore, when the court takes such a task upon itself, and findings are recorded solely on the basis of comparison of signatures or handwritings, the court must keep in mind the risk involved, as the opinion formed by the Court may not be conclusive and is susceptible to error, especially when the exercise is conducted by one, not conversant with the subject. The court, therefore, as a matter of prudence and caution should hesitate or be slow to base its findings solely upon the comparison made by it. However, where there is an opinion whether of an expert, or of any witness, the court may then apply its own observation by comparing the signatures, or handwritings for providing a decisive weight or influence to its decision.” 8. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that learned trial Court was not right in rejecting the application I.A.No.1 filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. Accordingly, the said order is liable to be set aside. 9. Hence, the following: ORDER : The impugned order passed on 28.11.2017 on I.A.No.1 in C.C.No.6 of 2016 on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudalagi, is set aside. I.A.No.1 in C.C.No.6 of 2016 is allowed. Learned trial Court is directed to refer Ex.D.1 for the examination of the disputed signature for the opinion of the expert thereon, along with admitted/sample signatures forthwith. Communicate this order to the learned trial Court forthwith.