Handwriting expert request in cheque dishonour case may be refused when signatures are admitted and delay is apparent.

In a section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act prosecution, the High Court held that a request to send the cheque to a handwriting expert for examining filled-in particulars could be refused where the signature was admitted, there were no visible alterations, and the defence of later filling of blank cheques could be tested by evidence. Section 243(2) CrPC gives the accused a right to summon evidence, but that right is subject to the Magistrate's discretion to prevent vexation, delay, or misuse of process. The belated application, together with the absence of any reply to the statutory notice, supported the finding that the request was not bona fide, and the refusal was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused, in a prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was entitled to have the cheque sent to a handwriting expert for examination of the filled-in particulars, and whether the Magistrate erred in refusing that request under section 243(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The right under section 243(2) to summon documents or witnesses is subject to the Magistrate's discretion to refuse a request made for vexation, delay, or defeating the ends of justice. In a summary prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Court held that the Magistrate must balance the accused's right to defend with the need to prevent misuse of the process. The Court distinguished the cases relied on by the applicant because here the signature on the cheques was not disputed, there were no visible material alterations such as erasures or overwriting, and the defence that blank cheques were later filled up could be tested by evidence without resort to handwriting expert opinion. The belated nature of the application and the absence of any reply to the statutory notice were also treated as indicating that the request was not bona fide.

Conclusion: The refusal to send the cheques to the handwriting expert was upheld, and the request was found to be made to protract the trial.

---