ORDER : ARUN MONGA, J. 1. Aggrieved against the revision court order dated 05.04.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu, upholding an order dated 20.12.2023, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Bidasar, District Churu in Criminal Complaint case No.88/2021, whereby application preferred by petitioner seeking hand writing expert’s opinion under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act read with Section 293 Cr.P.C. was rejected. 2. Respondent No.2/complainant has filed a criminal complaint against petitioner for dishonor of a cheque under Section 138 of N.I. Act stating that the cheque was issued by petitioner in discharge of a loan liability. 3. The petitioner submitted an application seeking expert opinion on the cheque signature and amount entry/hand writing thereof. Petitioner states that he neither took loan from respondent firm nor helped anyone to get loan from the respondent firm nor issued any cheque to the complainant firm. The petitioner states that respondent firm conspired with a person named Shyam Sundar to forge the cheque in question. 3.1 It is submitted by the petitioner that he never gave cheque in question to respondent firm in lieu of any debt, therefore to examine the truthfulness of the case, cheque in question was required to be sent for Forensic report. He is ready to bear all the expenses for the needful. 3.2. However, the learned Trial Court rejected the application of the petitioner leading to the instant petition. 4. Heard. 5. Ordinarily, once a cheque has been issued and its signature admitted, there is a legal presumption that it was given in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. This presumption, while rebuttable, generally stands strong in favor of the holder of cheque. However, in this case, the petitioner denies both the loan and the issuance of the cheque, further claiming that the signatures are not his and have been forged. The burden of proof lies with the petitioner (accused) to substantiate these claims. Therefore, the petition is disposed of with a directive that the trial court shall grant the petitioner one effective opportunity, at his own expense, to have the cheque examined by a handwriting expert. 6. The petitioner shall thus be permitted to introduce the expert opinion as evidence and also examine the expert as his defense witness, with the complainant having the right to accept or challenge the opinion as per the law. 6. The petitioner shall thus be permitted to introduce the expert opinion as evidence and also examine the expert as his defense witness, with the complainant having the right to accept or challenge the opinion as per the law. The trial shall then proceed further in accordance with law. The application Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act read with Section 293 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner before the learned trial court is thus allowed in above terms. Resultantly, impugned orders passed by the learned trial and the revisional court, ibid, are quashed. 7. Petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending application, if any, shall also stand disposed of.