Admission of signature does not bar handwriting comparison where disputed cheque entries and misuse defence remain in issue.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, admission of signature on a cheque does not amount to admission of execution, and it does not by itself negate a defence that the cheque was blank when signed and later filled without authority. A permissive presumption may arise from the admitted signature under the Evidence Act, but where handwriting of the disputed entries is genuinely in issue, expert comparison can be sought. On the facts, the accused had raised a consistent defence and disputed the complainant's version, so refusal to permit comparison was unjustified. The accused was allowed to file a fresh application and the Magistrate was directed to send the cheque for expert comparison.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a cheque can be sent for expert comparison of handwriting notwithstanding admission of signature, where the accused specifically contends that only the signature is admitted and the remaining entries were filled up without authority.

Analysis: Admission of signature is material, but it is not equivalent to admission of execution. Such admission may justify a permissive presumption of fact under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, yet it does not extinguish the accused's defence that a blank signed cheque was misused and that the other entries were made by the complainant. The facts relied on to decline expert comparison were distinguishable because the accused had raised a consistent defence, had replied to the demand notice, and the complainant's version on the handwriting was in issue. A request for comparison of admitted or specimen handwriting with the disputed writings was therefore a proper one, though the application required clarification.

Conclusion: The refusal to send the cheque for expert comparison was not justified in the facts of the case. The accused was permitted to make a fresh application and, on compliance, the Magistrate was directed to forward the cheque for expert comparison.

---