JUDGMENT 1. This instant Criminal Petition has been filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the validity and correctness of impugned order dtd. 3/2/2020 in Crl.M.P. No.890 of 2019 in C.C.No.259 of 2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Muvva, Krishna District. 2. Heard Sri Gantasala Uday Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Harikrishna Tata, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Ms. Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Asst. Public Prosecutor, for the state/2nd respondent. Perused the material on record. 3. Case of the petitioner in succinctly a. Petitioner herein being Accused in C.C.No.259 of 2019 is facing the trial for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882 (For short 'N.I.Act'). During the course of trial, Petitioner filed a petition under Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, seeking to send the cheque/Ex.P2 to the Director of A.P. State Forensic Science laboratory, Vijayawada to examine the alteration at amount column i.e., 1' as 7'. b. Against said petition, respondent herein i.e., the complainant filed his counter and contested the matter. c. The learned trial Judge dismissed the petition, holding that the accused did not dispute Ex.P1, the promissory note wherein the amount was mentioned as Rs.8, 50, 000.00 and vide Sec. 20 of the N.I.Act, when a person signs and delivers to another, either wholly blank or having written thereon an incomplete Negotiable Instrument, gives prima facie authority to the holder thereafter to make complete. The learned judge further observed that it is unsafe to treat the opinion of handwriting expert as sole basis for conviction, but it may be relied upon when supported by other internal or external evidence. 4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order the accused carried the matter before this Court in the instant petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that accused got issued a reply notice to the notice sent by the complainant demanding him to furnish the alleged promissory note and cheque, so as to give a suitable reply. Thereafter, on receipt of copies of the alleged promissory note and the cheque, they have given a proper reply denying the specific transaction under the promissory note and the cheque. They have specifically taken a plea that, as a security, Accused issued a cheque for Rs.1, 24, 000.00, but not Rs.7, 24, 000.00. Thereafter, on receipt of copies of the alleged promissory note and the cheque, they have given a proper reply denying the specific transaction under the promissory note and the cheque. They have specifically taken a plea that, as a security, Accused issued a cheque for Rs.1, 24, 000.00, but not Rs.7, 24, 000.00. The record further shows it was confronted to P.W.1 in cross examination about a letter signed by P.W.1 in that regard. 6. Refuting the above submission, learned counsel for respondent would submit that, the alleged letter introduced by the accused, which was confronted to P.W.1 in cross-examination with her signature relating to issuance of the cheque for Rs.1, 24, 000.00 relates to a different transaction, and not the instant one. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that a bare perusal of the cheque vide Ex.P2 would show that there is a material alteration in the amount column and with the presumption under Sec. 139 of N.I.Act, upon admission of signature on the cheque, a due opportunity should be provided to the Accused to rebut the same. 8. Learned counsel for the Respondent would argue that the question relating to the material alteration is a disputing question of fact and law, and for that the accused can adduce his evidence and Court can decide on appreciation of the same. It is further argued that since the opinion of the expert is not an exact science, there are absolutely no grounds to allow the petition and as such the impugned order is sustainable under law. In support of their contention, learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 Supreme Court Cases 197 wherein it was held: "A meaningful reading of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act including, in particular, Ss. 20, 87 and 139, makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of Sec. 138 would be attracted." 9. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of Sec. 138 would be attracted." 9. In the judgment referred supra, it is very clear that unless the person who signs a cheque adduces evidence to rebut the presumption, he is liable for punishment under Sec. 138 of N.I.Act. It is immaterial that cheque may have been filled in by any other person, other than the drawer, if it is duly signed by the drawer. Apt to mention here that if the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provision under Sec. 138 of NI Act would be attracted. 10. In the context of the present case, the peculiarity herein is though the drawer admits his signature, he says he has issued the said cheque as a security, for the amount deposited by the complainant in Agri gold for a period of two years. In fact, it was given in the year 2014, by mentioning the date as 2016, since the complainant would get Rs.1, 24, 000.00 after expiry of term of the deposit for 24 months. While so, the contention herein is that Rs.1, 24, 000.00 is altered as Rs.7, 24, 000.00. 11. Doubtless to say that when there is a controversy regarding the numerical number mentioned in the amount column and the description of the amount in words, the description would prevail. But in the present case, the specific defence raised is he signed on a blank cheque for Rs.1, 24, 000.00. Such being the case if it is altered for Rs.7, 24, 000.00, obviously the description of the amount also would follow the same. Though, the opinion of the expert is not an exact science, it is only opinion, it would assist the Court to come to a just conclusion to understand the truth or otherwise of the contentions raised by both parties during the trial. 12. Though, the opinion of the expert is not an exact science, it is only opinion, it would assist the Court to come to a just conclusion to understand the truth or otherwise of the contentions raised by both parties during the trial. 12. As rightly argued it is mixed question of fact and law, the Court can appreciate the evidence on record, but a fair chance should be given to the accused to avail his opportunity to send the document to the expert to know the alteration if any made subsequent to the amount mentioned as 1' changed to 7' at a later point of time as an afterthought. 13. Furthermore, Accused has specifically denied about the execution of alleged promissory note for an amount of Rs.8, 50, 000.00 in the reply notice itself and also issued rejoinder to his reply notice specifically disputing the amount as Rs.7, 24, 000.00. Such being the case, denial of his right to send the document to the expert is not tenable under law. 14. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, impugned order dtd. 3/2/2020, in Crl.M.P.No.890 of 2019 in C.C.No.259 of 2019, passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Muvva is set aside. Learned trial Judge is directed to take immediate steps for sending the documents to the expert according to law as expeditiously as possible. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.