Handwriting expert reference in cheque dispute upheld where accused claimed blank security cheques were later filled in.

In a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court permitted reference of the cheques to a handwriting expert after the complainant's evidence was recorded and the accused's statement had been taken. The request was allowed because the accused had raised a specific defence that the cheques were signed blank instruments given as security and later filled in by the complainant. The earlier refusal had been only on the ground of prematurity, and the authorities cited by the petitioner were distinguished on facts. As no jurisdictional or legal error was shown, the writ challenge to the expert-reference order was not entertained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order permitting reference of the cheques to a handwriting expert in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was liable to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The first request for expert opinion had been rejected as premature and not on merits. After the complainant had led evidence and the statement of the accused had been recorded, the subsequent application was considered in the context of the accused's specific defence that the cheques were signed blank cheques handed over as security and were later filled in by the complainant. The earlier authorities relied upon by the petitioner were distinguished on facts. In these circumstances, a fair opportunity to substantiate the defence warranted allowing examination by a handwriting expert, and no jurisdictional or legal error was shown in the impugned order.

Conclusion: The order allowing reference of the cheques to a handwriting expert was upheld and no interference was called for; the challenge failed.

---