Handwriting expert comparison in cheque dishonour cases cannot be refused when the disputed writing is material to the defence.

Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not apply to cheques because it governs stamped, incomplete instruments delivered with authority to complete them. In a Section 138 prosecution, an accused may seek handwriting expert examination of disputed cheque writings where it is material to the defence and not merely vexatious or dilatory. Refusing such comparison can deny a fair opportunity to rebut the complainant's case, so the rejection of the application was unsustainable and was set aside, with the cheque directed for expert comparison.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order refusing comparison of the cheque writings by a handwriting expert was legally sustainable, and whether Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applied to a cheque so as to justify rejection of the application.

Analysis: Section 20 applies to stamped, incomplete instruments delivered with authority to complete them, but a cheque is not a stamped instrument. The denial of expert comparison deprived the accused of a fair opportunity to adduce defence evidence. In proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused is entitled to seek examination of disputed writings where it may assist rebuttal of the complainant's case, unless the request is vexatious or intended only to delay the proceeding. The refusal was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The rejection of the application was set aside and the cheque was directed to be sent for comparison by a handwriting expert, in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The accused was held entitled to expert examination of the cheque writings, and the impugned refusal was quashed to secure a fair opportunity to present the defence.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not govern cheques, and an accused in a cheque dishonour prosecution cannot be denied handwriting comparison of disputed writings where the request is material to the defence and not vexatious.

---