Finality of expert-rejection orders and cheque handwriting differences cannot justify reopening CFSL reference in prosecution.

A criminal court cannot reopen, by a later suo motu order, a request for handwriting expert examination once an earlier refusal has attained finality; the Magistrate therefore lacked authority to refer the same cheques to CFSL. In a cheque prosecution, the mere fact that the body of the cheque is in different handwriting does not, by itself, justify expert opinion where the drawer's signature is admitted. The impugned reference order was unsustainable and was set aside, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the case.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a Metropolitan Magistrate, after finally rejecting a request to send cheques for handwriting expert opinion, could later suo motu refer the same cheques to the CFSL; (ii) whether the cheques could be referred for handwriting expert opinion merely because the body of the cheques was said to be in a different handwriting.

Issue (i): Whether a Metropolitan Magistrate, after finally rejecting a request to send cheques for handwriting expert opinion, could later suo motu refer the same cheques to the CFSL.

Analysis: The earlier order rejecting the request for expert opinion had attained finality and was unqualified in its refusal. Once that order was final, the Magistrate could not, at a later stage, do indirectly what could not be done directly by effectively reviewing the earlier decision. Although a court has wide powers to seek expert assistance where necessary for a just decision, those powers do not extend to reopening a matter that has already been conclusively decided and has become final.

Conclusion: The Magistrate had no authority to suo motu refer the same cheques to the CFSL after the earlier refusal had attained finality.

Issue (ii): Whether the cheques could be referred for handwriting expert opinion merely because the body of the cheques was said to be in a different handwriting.

Analysis: In a cheque case, the decisive feature is the drawer's signature, and the fact that the payee's name, amount, or other entries are in a different handwriting does not by itself invalidate the cheque. The drawer had admitted the signatures and had not shown that the mere difference in handwriting justified expert examination as a matter of law. The trial court's reliance on handwriting comparison was therefore unwarranted on the facts.

Conclusion: The cheques ought not to have been referred for handwriting expert opinion on the ground relied upon by the Magistrate.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order directing CFSL reference was unsustainable and was set aside, with the trial court directed to proceed with the case.

Ratio Decidendi: A criminal court cannot reopen by a subsequent suo motu order an issue already finally decided against expert reference, and in a cheque prosecution the mere fact that the body of the cheque is in a different handwriting does not invalidate the instrument where the drawer's signature is admitted.

---