Right to defence evidence protects disputed signature analysis unless the request is vexatious or intended to defeat justice.

An accused has a right to adduce relevant defence evidence, including expert opinion on disputed signatures, and such evidence should not be refused unless the request is vexatious, dilatory, or intended to defeat the ends of justice. A Magistrate is not required to decide for the accused whether the evidence is necessary, and the court's own ability to compare signatures cannot by itself justify rejection of a request for handwriting analysis. Reasons must be recorded for denying such defence evidence; absent reasons, refusal to refer disputed documents to a handwriting expert is unlawful.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused could be denied the opportunity to send disputed documents to a handwriting expert for opinion and thereby prevented from adducing relevant defence evidence.

Analysis: The accused sought expert comparison of signatures on documents relied upon as proof of repayment, and the documents were part of the defence evidence. The Court held that an accused has a right to adduce defence evidence, and that relevant and admissible evidence cannot be refused unless the request is made for vexation, delay, or to defeat the ends of justice. The Magistrate was not required to decide for the accused whether such evidence was necessary, and the mere ability of the Court to compare signatures itself could not justify rejection of the request. Reasons were also required for denying such defence evidence, which were absent in the impugned orders.

Conclusion: The refusal to refer the documents to a handwriting expert was unlawful, and the accused was entitled to have the application allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: An accused cannot be prevented from adducing relevant and admissible defence evidence, including expert opinion on disputed signatures, unless the Court records reasons that the request is vexatious, dilatory, or intended to defeat justice.

---