Fair trial rights in cheque cases do not justify repetitive forensic requests made to delay proceedings.

In a cheque dishonour prosecution, the Court held that the accused's right to fair trial and rebuttal evidence does not extend to repeated forensic testing where the request lacks relevance or appears intended to delay proceedings. Earlier attempts to obtain expert opinion on the age of ink had already failed, and the renewed request to send the same cheque to another laboratory was found to be dilatory. The defence that a managing partner had issued a blank signed cheque was also found not credible on the facts. The request for further forensic examination was therefore refused, and the challenge to that refusal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused was entitled, at that stage, to have the cheque sent again for expert opinion to ascertain the age of the ink, and whether refusal of that request warranted interference.

Analysis: The complaint arose under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the accused admitted the signature on the cheque. The Court applied the principle that an accused has a right to fair trial and to adduce rebuttal evidence, but that right is not absolute and may be refused where the request is intended to cause vexation or delay, or where the material sought is not relevant to the defence. The Court noted that earlier attempts to obtain an opinion on the age of the ink from forensic laboratories had already failed, and that the repeated request to send the same cheque to another laboratory, without a persuasive basis, indicated dilatory conduct. The Court also held that the pleaded defence of a managing partner issuing a blank signed cheque was not credible on the facts.

Conclusion: The request for a further forensic examination was rightly refused, and the revision challenging that refusal failed.

---