Handwriting expert comparison in cheque dishonour cases should be allowed on merits unless the request is vexatious or delaying.

An accused in a cheque dishonour prosecution may seek comparison of disputed cheques or signatures with admitted signatures through handwriting expert evidence at the defence stage, because the right to adduce defence evidence under Section 243(2) CrPC is a safeguard of fair trial. The court should examine such a request on its merits and not reject it merely because it is made after prosecution evidence has closed or because forgery was not pleaded earlier. Since the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are rebuttable, refusal is justified only if the application is demonstrably vexatious or intended to delay proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused was entitled to have the disputed cheques and admitted signatures sent for handwriting expert opinion at the defence stage, and whether the trial court was justified in refusing the request on the ground of delay.

Analysis: The accused in a cheque dishonour prosecution is entitled to a fair trial and to adduce evidence in defence, including seeking comparison of disputed signatures with admitted signatures through an expert. The right under Section 243(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is a valuable safeguard and cannot be denied on hyper-technical grounds merely because the request was made after the prosecution evidence had closed or because the accused had not earlier raised the plea of forgery. The presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are rebuttable, and the court must consider such an application on its own merits unless it is demonstrably vexatious or intended only to delay the proceedings.

Conclusion: The refusal to permit expert comparison was not legally sustainable. The accused was entitled to an opportunity to substantiate the defence, and the order dismissing the applications was liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The revision petitions were allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was sent back for fresh consideration by the trial court after giving due opportunity to both sides.

Ratio Decidendi: A request by an accused to send disputed signatures or writings for expert comparison, made to support a defence in a criminal trial, should ordinarily be granted on merits unless the court finds it to be vexatious or intended to delay the proceedings, because denial of such an opportunity may defeat the right to a fair trial.

---