ORDER : 1. By way of this application, the applicant challenges the order passed below Exh. 198, dated 06.12.2021 in Criminal Case No. 1048 of 2003, by the learned 19th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat and order of the Revisional Court dated 22.03.2022, whereby, the courts below rejected the prayer of the applicant to refer the documents like challan, disputed cheque and bank slip for opinion of the handwriting expert. 2. The facts giving rise to this application may be summarized as under : (i) The respondent no. 1 complainant has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, against the accused applicant and his wife, which is numbered as CC No. 1048 of 2003. (ii) The trial Court has recorded the evidence of respondent no.1 complainant at Exh. 18, whereas, the applicant herein entered into witness box to prove his defence vide Exh. 99. (iii) After filing closing purshis by the complainant, further statement of accused herein was recorded and after hearing both the parties and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned trial Court vide order dated 14.10.2016, acquitted the applicant and his wife. Being aggrieved with the judgment of the acquittal, the complainant, preferred Acquittal Appeal before the High Court (Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2017). Vide order dated 17.01.2019, the coordinate bench of this Court quashed the order of acquittal and remanded back the case, for limited purpose. (iv) Vide Exh. 198, the accused applicant herein moved an application to refer two challans Exh. 186 and 187, cheques Exh. 25 and 26, and bank slip Exh. 125 for the opinion of the handwriting experts to verify the signatures, as, there is dissimilarity in the words mentioned in the cheques. (v) Learned trial Court after hearing the parties and considering the law on this aspect, rejected the application, observing that when there is no dispute regarding signature of the cheques, application was being filed with a view to protract the trial. (vi) Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06,.12.2021, passed below Exh. 198, the accused applicant herein, preferred Revision Application before the learned Sessions Judge, Surat, who vide order dated 22.03.2022 concluded that the revision petition was bereft of any merit and accordingly dismissed the same. 3. In the aforesaid facts, the applicant herein has come-up before this Court by preferring the present petition. 4. 198, the accused applicant herein, preferred Revision Application before the learned Sessions Judge, Surat, who vide order dated 22.03.2022 concluded that the revision petition was bereft of any merit and accordingly dismissed the same. 3. In the aforesaid facts, the applicant herein has come-up before this Court by preferring the present petition. 4. This Court has heard learned counsel Bomi Shethna, Daifraz Havawala, and Mr. Manan Mehta, learned APP for the respective parties. 5. Mr. Bomi Shethna, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that both the courts below committed serious error in passing the impugned orders. He submitted that accused herein denied the execution of challans and alleged that it was fabricated by the complainant, whereas, the bank slips also bears the signature of the son of the complainant Amit Naran and there is a mismatch in the signature of the cheque as well as challans and therefore, opinion of the expert is relevant upon point of identify of hand writings. In this context, it was submitted that the entire basis of the matter is on the premise that cheque was discounted by the complainant and pursuant to the same, challan was issued by the complainant and it was accepted by the accused by putting his signature on the said challan and thus, legal debt accrued on the accused. In the case filed under the provisions of Section 138, the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, indicates that there is legal presumption that the cheque was issued for discharging the liability and same can be rebutted by the person who draws the cheque and therefore, to rebut the presumption, the accused should be given proper opportunity which is a basic principle of the trial. Learned courts below while rejecting the application, did not consider this very aspect of principle of fair trial and therefore, interference by this Court is required. It was further submitted that after remanding back the matter, the learned trial Court, exhibited documents produced by the complainant and therefore considering the direction given by the High Court, reasonable opportunity, to prove defence required to be given to the accused. 6. In support of the aforesaid contentions, heavy reliance has been placed on the judgment of Apex Court rendered in Anokhilal Vs. 6. In support of the aforesaid contentions, heavy reliance has been placed on the judgment of Apex Court rendered in Anokhilal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2019 AIJEL-SC-65562, to submit that what is paramount is the cause of justice and fast tracking of process must never ever result in burying the cause of justice. Thus, therefore, he submitted that though there is delay in completion of trial, but to give fair opportunity to the applicant accused for cause of justice, the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the application so as to enable the applicant accused to rebut the evidence led by the complainant herein. 7. On the other hand, the application is vehemently opposed by Mr. Havawala, learned advocate for the respondent contending that no error could be said have been committed by the courts below in passing the impugned orders and therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. The complaint under the provisions of the NI Act, against the applicant accused filed in the year 2003. In the year 2016, vide its judgment dated 14.10.2016, the learned trial Court acquitted the present applicant and his wife. On filing appeal before the High Court, vide order dated 17.01.2019, the matter remanded back to the learned Magistrate for a limited purpose. Thereafter, on 17.10.2019, the complainant moved an application Exh. 172 to lead further evidence as well as for exhibiting the documents which came to be allowed vide order dated 18.01.2020. The applicant accused preferred application Exh. 198 dated 08.10.,2021 seeking opinion of hand writing expert with respect to disputed challans, bank slips and disputed cheques. 9. By an order dated 06.12.2021, the learned trial Court dismissed the application holding as under : “6.1. First prayer is to send Exh.186 & 187 for handwriting expert opinion as to age of ink and to obtain signature and handwriting of the accused. a) So far as the present prayer is concerned, it is crystal clear from the record and proceeding of the case that, in this case before filing this application, at no point of time during the whole proceeding which was carried out the before remanding the matter by the Hon’ble High Court, no such plea was advanced by the accused. a) So far as the present prayer is concerned, it is crystal clear from the record and proceeding of the case that, in this case before filing this application, at no point of time during the whole proceeding which was carried out the before remanding the matter by the Hon’ble High Court, no such plea was advanced by the accused. It is required to be noted that the accused was having full fledged opportunities to challenge this document. Because as per admission of the accused in his evidence tendered at exhibit196, these documents were received by accused way back in year-2003. So since- 2003 these documents were within knowledge of accused. Now, questions arises that, during all these year did accused initiated any proceedings against the complainant for fabricating his signatures?. Answer of the same is in negative. Same is also there on record in evidence of accused at exhibit-196. It is also required to be noted that when accused was having all opportunities why he did not availed these opportunities to challenge these documents. Even otherwise, in this case accused did not initiated any criminal proceedings against complainant for fabricating his signatures on these exhibit-186 & 187's documents even after receipt of these documents way back in year-2003. This very fact cannot be ignored by this Court. In this case when questions with regard to these documents came be put forward in further-statement to the accused, accused as to nomenclature of the documents. But, accused did not contended that, these documents does not bears his signatures. This very facts lead to believe that, accused has tried to bought up defence with regard to these documents which are exhibited. This application is tendered by the accused and that to tender after almost 18 years of the institution of the case and after receipt of these documents. It is also require to be noted that laps in time is itself sufficient to came to the conclusion that the accused has willingly waived his right by not tendering this application within reasonable time. If it was defence of the accused from the beginning that such prayer could have been advanced by the accused within reasonable time. But, it was not done by the accused in the present case. If it was defence of the accused from the beginning that such prayer could have been advanced by the accused within reasonable time. But, it was not done by the accused in the present case. At no point of time, it cannot be considered that only because after cross-examination of the complainant, and after remanding matter by the Hon’ble High court, right of the accused to send Exh.186 & 187 accrued. 6.2. Next prayer is advanced by the accused to send Exh.25 & 26's Cheques for obtaining expert opinion as to age of ink and to examine, whether the signature and the body writing of the Cheques are in one pen or not?. Along with this opinion as to difference of darkness of the writing and signature appears on the disputed cheques, is also made, one of the ground to send Exh.25 & 26's Cheques to F.S.L. for the expert opinion. If this prayer of the accused is taken into consideration, then can be said that this plea is raised after passage of 18 years after institution of the case. The present prayer is advanced by the accused and that too after matter was remanding back by the Hon’ble High court and application itself is sufficient to came to the conclusion that the accused has tried to drag the proceeding under the guise of fair trial. In that case, the complainant’s cross-examination is carried out after the matter remanding back to this court, would not make the accused entitled to sent cheque for obtaining expert opinion by sending the same to the F.S.L. Thus in this case, this court firmly believe that this application is nothing but to delay tactics on the part of the accused to drag the proceeding of the case. As this Court has discussed earlier, in this case in his further-statement accused did not raised defence which is raised in present application. 6.3. Next prayer is advanced by the accused to obtain natural handwriting of complainant’s son namely Amit Narang. It is required to be noted that Exh.125 came to be produced on record on 19.03.2016. It is also required to be noted that Exh.125 was there on the record since 2016. During the whole proceedings, which the trial took place, the accused didn’t put forward such a plea, which is read now before the Court. It is required to be noted that Exh.125 came to be produced on record on 19.03.2016. It is also required to be noted that Exh.125 was there on the record since 2016. During the whole proceedings, which the trial took place, the accused didn’t put forward such a plea, which is read now before the Court. In that case, the accused has raised defence in his evidence that Exh.125 was in handwriting of complainant’s son namely Amit Narang. It is also required to be noted that the present prayer is for obtaining handwriting of complainant’s son namely Amit Narang. But, if the prayer of the accused is taken into consideration, then it can be said that indirectly this prayer is examining the complainant’s son namely Amit Narang as defence witness. Which is not permissible in humble opinion of this court. Because, if it was defence of the accused from the beginning, that Exh.125 is not in his handwriting and Exh.125 is handwriting of the complainant’s son namely Amit Narang, then the accused was having all time to move such application and to ask such prayer before the original trial was concluded. It is also required to be noted that by Exh.99 the accused put forward his evidence. In Exh.99’s deposition of the accused no where stated that the complainant’s son namely Amit Narang has filled this receipt in his signature or by his handwriting. Thus this fact leads to believe that the complainant’s son namely Amit Narang is not at all require to call for the purpose of obtaining his handwriting. If such course is allowed then it will amount to called in complainant’s son namely Amit Narang as defence witness, which is not permissible by law. It is also required to be noted that it no where case of the complainant that his son namely Amit Narang was conducting this business with him. It is the defence of the accused that the receipt was written by the complainant’s son namely Amit Narang. Even otherwise, this fact is taken into consideration and it is taken as true, then also this fact will not have any bearing on the present case’s fact and circumstances. Because present case is filed under Sec.138 of N.I.Act. It is the defence of the accused that the receipt was written by the complainant’s son namely Amit Narang. Even otherwise, this fact is taken into consideration and it is taken as true, then also this fact will not have any bearing on the present case’s fact and circumstances. Because present case is filed under Sec.138 of N.I.Act. Recently by cited judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court of India has specifically held that once the signature on the cheque is admitted by the accused, the presumption under Sec.139 of N.I.Act starts in favour of the complainant. In the present case also, the accused has not disputed his signature on the disputed cheque and under the guise of fair trial, the accused cannot be allowed to call the complainant’s son namely Amit Narang to give evidence in his favour. For that purpose, this court can call to hear the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Bhinang Mahendrabhai Bharodiya V/s State of Gujarat delivered in the case of Special Civil Application No.908 of 2019. Thus, ratio laid down by the above mentioned judgment also, it considered then prayer sought by the accused to obtain handwriting of the complainant’s son namely Amit Narang cannot be allowed. Because, which is not permissible directly cannot be allowed to done indirectly. Prayer of the accused is in such nature which asks Court to do such exercise indirectly. 6.4. As this court had denied to grant the prayer for obtaining handwriting of the complainant’s son namely Amit Narang, prayer to send exh.125 and handwriting of Amit Narang also requires to reject for the reasons stated herein above by this court. Because, when this Court in not inclined to call complainant's son Amit Narang for obtaining his signatures, then this prayer to send exh.125's slip and handwriting of Amit Narang also requires to be rejected.” 10. By an order dated 22.03.2022, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition, observing that no case is made out for interference with the order of the trial Court. 11. This Court has considered the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties and carefully perused the impugned orders. 12. 11. This Court has considered the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties and carefully perused the impugned orders. 12. This Court is conscious about the settled law with regard to right of the accused to adduce evidence of his choice, is a part of fair trial. The right of the court to deny an opportunities for defence evidence, is limited to cases where, it is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded, in writing, that the application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vaxition or delay or defeating the ends of justice. If an application made for sending the document to hand writing expert, particularly in a complaint which is filed under Section 138, the Magistrate has to consider the application and after taking into consideration facts of the case, as to whether it is a fit case for sending the document to hand writing expert. The proceedings under Section 138 are of a summary nature and the Act, itself contemplates that the trial should be over within a period of six months. There is a tendency on the part of the accused to protract the trial as much as possible. However, it is right of the accused to rebut the presumption which is raised under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act, and for that purpose, a fair opportunity has to be given to him. In these circumstances, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ensure that by filing frivolous application, accused does not protract the trial and therefore, after taking into consideration genuineness of the application and individual facts of the case, the learned Magistrate has to consider whether the application filed by the accused needs to be granted or not. Merely because, accused has right of being given a fair opportunity, it cannot be said that in each and every case, whenever application is filed for sending the documents to hand writing expert, the same should be allowed. 13. In the present case, in my view, the learned Courts below were justified in rejecting the application. The complaint for the dishonour of cheque is filed on 17.07.2003. During the course of proceedings, the copy of challan, bank slips and disputed cheques were provided to the accused at the initial stage of the trial. 13. In the present case, in my view, the learned Courts below were justified in rejecting the application. The complaint for the dishonour of cheque is filed on 17.07.2003. During the course of proceedings, the copy of challan, bank slips and disputed cheques were provided to the accused at the initial stage of the trial. At the stage of recording of further statement, the accused herein did not raise any dispute with regard to documents. The applicant accused is not denying his signature on the cheques. Now, after 18 years, he moved an application seeking to send documents for the opinion of hand writing expert. It is settled principle that pattern of signature is always keep on changing and therefore, the party who disputed the execution of the documents, have to applied at the commencement of the trial and not after waiting for 18 years on conclusion of the evidence. It is to be noted that he has not produced any document to show his contemporary signature. Therefore, the learned Courts below have exercised their discretion judiciously as the application filed by the applicant was with the sole object to protract the trial. Even otherwise, the courts below have recorded well reasoned order. In these circumstances, in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226/277 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot reconsider the disputed facts, as the scope of the power of this Court is not coextensive with appellate powers and High Court should not act as a second revisional court under the garb of exercising inherent powers. 14. In light of the foregoing discussions, the applicant herein failed to point out the errors that have been committed by the Courts below, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice and therefore, the courts below have rightly held that the application filed by the accused here is not bonafide and it was filed with a view to protract the trial. Thus, there is no error or perversity in the impugned orders passed by courts below in dismissing the application, so as to warrant any interference of this Court and therefore, the petition is found to be completely devoid of any merits. 15. As a result, accordingly petition stands dismissed.