Defence evidence in cheque dishonour cases may include expert handwriting and ink examination to rebut statutory presumption.

In a cheque dishonour prosecution, an accused who raises a plausible defence of forgery, misuse, or stolen cheques may be allowed to lead expert evidence on handwriting and ink entries to rebut the statutory presumption. The court treated such evidence as relevant to the defence and to the accused's right to a fair trial, and found the request bona fide, not intended to cause delay or vexation. The revisional order permitting expert examination was therefore upheld, and no ground was made out to interfere; the petitions were rejected on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused in a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act could be permitted to lead expert evidence on the age of handwriting and ink entries on the cheques to rebut the statutory presumption and support the defence of forgery or misuse.

Analysis: The accused had taken a specific defence that the cheques were not issued by him, that some cheques had been lost or stolen, and that the amounts were filled in by forgery. In such a situation, the statutory presumption operating in favour of the complainant does not foreclose the accused's opportunity to rebut it. The request for expert examination was treated as relevant to the defence and as part of the accused's right to fair trial and to adduce defence evidence. The request was also found to be bona fide and not shown to be aimed at vexation, delay, or defeating the ends of justice.

Conclusion: The accused was entitled to seek expert examination of the disputed cheques for rebuttal purposes, and the revisional order granting that relief was upheld.

Final Conclusion: No ground was made out for interference with the revisional order, and the petitions were rejected on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an accused in a cheque dishonour prosecution raises a plausible defence of forgery or misuse, he must ordinarily be afforded an opportunity to adduce relevant defence evidence, including expert evidence, to rebut the statutory presumption, provided the request is bona fide and necessary for the ends of justice.

---