Defence evidence in cheque dishonour cases includes expert examination of disputed writings when misuse of blank instruments is alleged.

In a cheque dishonour prosecution, an accused who admits signatures but alleges that a cheque and promissory note were issued blank and later misused may seek expert examination of the disputed writings to test ink age and timing. The Court treated such examination as a relevant means of probabilising the defence and held that its admissibility and relevance cannot be rejected merely because the final evidentiary value will be assessed at trial. It emphasised that the accused has a valuable right to lead defence evidence under the reverse-onus framework, and the request to examine the documents should not be denied without justification.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the accused was entitled to have the cheque and promissory note sent for expert examination to determine the age of the ink and the timing of the writings as part of his defence.

Analysis: The accused had admitted his signatures but pleaded that the cheque and promissory note were issued blank for a different purpose and were later misused. The Court held that the defence could be probabalised by expert examination and that the admissibility and relevance of expert opinion could not be rejected merely because its evidentiary value would be assessed later at trial. It accepted that the accused has a valuable right to adduce defence evidence in a cheque dishonour case, particularly in the context of the reverse onus under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court also noted that, in the circumstances of the case, there was no justification to deny the request to send the documents for examination.

Conclusion: The accused was entitled to have the cheque and promissory note sent for expert examination to determine the age of the ink and related writings.

Final Conclusion: The order refusing expert examination was set aside and the accused's application was allowed, thereby permitting the documents to be examined as part of the defence.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an accused in a cheque dishonour case admits signature but raises a bona fide defence that the instruments were misused, the Court should not deny expert examination of the disputed documents merely on the ground that the ultimate evidentiary value of the opinion is uncertain; the accused's right to lead defence evidence must be preserved when the opinion is relevant and admissible.

---