Handwriting expert examination allowed to ensure fair rebuttal and proper adjudication of a disputed document

A disputed document may be sent for handwriting expert examination where refusal would unfairly limit the accused or petitioners' opportunity to rebut the case against them. The Magistrate's rejection was found unsustainable because it did not properly address the grievance, and expert comparison was treated as useful for fair adjudication without prejudicing the respondent. Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was held not to bar such examination, and an incorrect or omitted statutory reference did not defeat jurisdiction where the court otherwise had power to pass the order. The request for handwriting expert examination was therefore allowed and the rejection orders set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to have the disputed document examined by a handwriting expert despite rejection of their application.

Analysis: The rejection of the request for handwriting expert examination was held to be unsustainable because the reasoning adopted by the Magistrate did not properly address the petitioners' grievance. The Court relied on the principle that, in proceedings of this nature, the accused or petitioner must be given a fair opportunity to rebut the case against them, and that denial of expert examination may prejudice that right. It was also noted that Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not bar such examination, and that wrong or non-mentioning of a provision does not matter where the court otherwise has jurisdiction to pass the order. The Court further accepted that sending the document to a handwriting expert would assist in the proper adjudication of the dispute without causing prejudice to the respondent.

Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to examination of a handwriting expert, and the orders rejecting that request were set aside.

---