Accused's right to seek handwriting expert opinion on cheque signature was necessary for a fair defence in a cheque dishonour case.

Under Section 243(2) CrPC, an accused who has entered defence may seek production of a document or thing necessary for defence, and refusal is permissible only where the request is vexatious, dilatory, or intended to defeat justice, with reasons recorded. In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the cheque formed the basis of the case, so examination by a handwriting expert on the signature was relevant to the accused's defence. Denying that opportunity would impair a meaningful rebuttal and affect trial fairness. The request to send the cheque for expert opinion should have been allowed, and the Magistrate's refusal, upheld by the High Court, was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after the prosecution evidence was closed in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the accused was entitled under Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to seek sending of the cheque for handwriting expert opinion on the genuineness of the signature.

Analysis: Section 243(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 confers on an accused, after entering upon defence, the right to apply for the production of a document or other thing necessary for defence. That right can be refused only if the application is for vexation, delay, or defeating the ends of justice, and the ground must be recorded. The cheque was the foundation of the prosecution case, and examination by a handwriting expert was relevant to the accused's defence. Denial of that opportunity would deprive the accused of a meaningful chance to rebut the prosecution case and would impair the fairness of the trial.

Conclusion: The request to send the cheque for handwriting expert opinion ought to have been allowed, and the refusal by the Magistrate and the affirming order of the High Court were unsustainable.

---