Forensic examination of disputed cheques is a fair-trial right when age of ink and writing is relevant to the defence.

In a cheque dishonour prosecution, the accused was entitled to seek forensic examination of the disputed cheques to determine the age of the ink and writings. The Court held that expert opinion on the age of writing and ink is not inherently barred and may constitute relevant evidence under the Evidence Act when the defence alleges later alteration of the instruments. It emphasised that the accused's right to adduce defence evidence is an important component of a fair trial, and the request should not be rejected merely because scientific precision may be limited or because the evidentiary value will be assessed at a later stage. The Magistrate's refusal was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused in a cheque dishonour prosecution was entitled to have the disputed cheques sent to a forensic expert for opinion on the age of the ink and writings.

Analysis: The request was made as part of the defence to show that the cheques had been issued in an earlier year and were later altered. The Court held that expert opinion on age of writing and ink is not inherently barred and can be relevant material under the Evidence Act. The accused's right to adduce defence evidence is a valuable part of a fair trial, and such a request should not be refused merely on the view that scientific accuracy may be difficult or that the evidentiary value will ultimately be assessed later. The Court distinguished authorities taking a contrary view and relied on precedent recognising that the accused must be afforded a meaningful opportunity to rebut the prosecution case.

Conclusion: The accused was entitled to seek forensic examination of the disputed cheques, and the refusal by the Magistrate was unsustainable.

---