Fair trial in cheque dishonour cases permits expert examination of disputed cheque particulars to support the defence.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a request to send disputed cheques for handwriting expert examination on the age of ink and filling of particulars was treated as relevant where the accused disputed only the filling in of details, not the signature, and claimed the cheques were security instruments. The court reasoned that criminal procedure must preserve a fair trial and give the accused a meaningful opportunity to rebut the prosecution case through defence evidence. On that basis, refusal to permit expert examination was unsustainable and the request was liable to be allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the cheque relied upon in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act should be sent to a handwriting expert for examination of the age of ink and filling up of particulars, and whether refusal to permit such examination would deny the accused a fair opportunity to rebut the complainant's case.

Analysis: The challenge arose from rejection of the accused's request to refer the disputed cheques for expert opinion. The reasoning accepted that the accused disputed not the signature itself but the filling in of particulars, and asserted that the cheques had been issued only as security. In that setting, expert examination was treated as relevant to enable the accused to present defence material. The principle applied was that procedure in criminal trial must preserve a fair trial and the accused must be given a meaningful opportunity to rebut the prosecution case, including by producing defence evidence that may assist the court in reaching a just conclusion.

Conclusion: The request for expert examination was liable to be allowed, and the orders refusing that request were unsustainable.

---