statement of the petitioner-accused has been recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred an application Exh.47 on 11.1.2012 requesting to send the disputed cheque in question to the hand writing expert for verification of the hand writing and signature thereon and to call expert’s opinion in that regard. However, the petitioner has nowhere disputed/denied his signature on the cheque in question (Exh.15) and the substance of the evidence is silent in that respect. Hence, the fact remains that the petitioner has nowhere specifically denied the signature on the disputed cheque in question. Moreover, Section 20 of the said Act authorizes the Payee or the holder in due course to complete an incomplete negotiable instrument. Hence, in that view of the matter, there was no necessity to send the disputed cheque in question to the hand writing expert for verification of hand writing and signature thereon and the learned trial court has rightly rejected the application preferred by the petitioner on 13.2.2012. Hence, there is no error in the impugned order, and therefore, no interference is called for therein. Hence, present petition deserves to be rejected.
