Handwriting expert request in cheque dishonour cases may be refused when made to delay trial and protract proceedings.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, an accused who admits the cheque signature, does not reply to the statutory notice, and does not step into the witness box may still seek to rebut the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139, but the court must also guard against delay. A request made after the complainant's evidence was closed for sending the cheque to a handwriting expert can be refused under Section 243(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure if it appears intended to protract the trial or defeat the ends of justice. On these facts, the revisional court should not have interfered with the magistrate's discretionary refusal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional court was justified in setting aside the magistrate's order and permitting the disputed cheque to be sent to a handwriting expert.

Analysis: The challenge arose in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act where the accused did not dispute his signature on the cheque, did not reply to the statutory notice, and did not enter the witness box. The request for expert examination was made after the complainant's evidence had been concluded. Under Section 243(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a process to compel production of evidence may be refused if the application is made for vexation, delay, or to defeat the ends of justice. The magistrate had recorded a finding that the application was intended to delay the trial. In a case where the signature is admitted and the defence rests only on the plea that the cheque was blank and given as security, the court must balance the accused's opportunity to rebut the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the need to prevent protraction of the trial. On these facts, the revisional court was not justified in interfering with the magistrate's discretionary refusal.

Conclusion: The revisional court's interference was unwarranted and the magistrate's order refusing handwriting expert examination was upheld.

---