Handwriting expert comparison in cheque cases is discretionary, and repeat requests may be rejected as delaying tactics.

An accused in a Section 138 complaint has a fair-trial right to lead defence evidence, including a request for handwriting expert comparison of disputed pronote and cheque signatures, but that right is not absolute and may be refused under Section 243(2) CrPC if the request is vexatious, dilatory, or contrary to the ends of justice. A second application seeking substantially the same relief, even with a changed document, was treated as an attempt to reopen an earlier refusal and delay the trial, and was held not maintainable. The accused was nonetheless allowed a limited opportunity to examine an expert at his own cost within the time fixed by the Court.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an accused in a complaint under Section 138 could seek comparison of disputed pronote and cheque with admitted signatures by a handwriting expert; (ii) Whether a second successive application for the same relief was maintainable.

Issue (i): Whether an accused in a complaint under Section 138 could seek comparison of disputed pronote and cheque with admitted signatures by a handwriting expert.

Analysis: The right to a fair trial under Article 21 includes a meaningful opportunity to defend oneself, and an accused is entitled to adduce defence evidence. At the same time, the right is not absolute. Under Section 243(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Magistrate may refuse a request made for vexation, delay, or to defeat the ends of justice. The disputed documents may be sent for expert comparison where the request genuinely serves the cause of justice.

Conclusion: The accused had no absolute right to insist on expert comparison, but such an opportunity could be granted where the interests of justice so required.

Issue (ii): Whether a second successive application for the same relief was maintainable.

Analysis: A second application seeking substantially the same relief, with only a change in the document to be compared, was treated as an attempt to reopen the earlier refusal and as an effort to delay the proceedings. The Court noted that the accused could still examine his own expert and that the trial court could exercise power under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 if appropriate.

Conclusion: The second application was not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeals did not succeed in overturning the refusal order, but the accused was given a limited opportunity to examine an expert at his own cost within the time fixed by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: A request for handwriting expert comparison in criminal proceedings is subject to judicial discretion under Section 243(2) and may be refused if it is made to delay the trial, though the accused retains a fair opportunity to lead defence evidence where the ends of justice require it.

---