Admitted cheque signatures and prior defence opportunity justified refusal of further expert evidence and additional witnesses.

Where the accused had admitted the cheque signature and had already been given an effective opportunity to lead defence evidence, the Punjab and Haryana HC upheld refusal to permit handwriting expert/FSL examination on the cheque, treating the belated request as unnecessary for a just decision. The Court also upheld refusal to summon additional witnesses under Section 311 CrPC because the witnesses were already known from the beginning, the request was made at the stage of final arguments, and no material showed the evidence was essential rather than dilatory. The supervisory challenge therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refusal to permit examination of the handwriting expert and FSL report in relation to the cheque was justified; (ii) Whether the refusal to summon additional witnesses under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was justified.

Issue (i): Whether the refusal to permit examination of the handwriting expert and FSL report in relation to the cheque was justified.

Analysis: The signatures on the cheque were admitted by the accused. Once the drawer admits his signatures on a cheque, a request for expert examination of handwriting or ink on the basis of alleged filling or alteration of the instrument carries little weight, particularly where the challenge is raised belatedly. The Court found that the application was moved after the petitioners had already been granted an effective opportunity to lead defence evidence and had availed of it. The surrounding circumstances showed no sufficient basis to treat the disputed cheque examination as necessary for a just decision.

Conclusion: The refusal to permit examination of the handwriting expert and FSL report was upheld, against the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the refusal to summon additional witnesses under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was justified.

Analysis: The witnesses sought to be summoned had been known to the petitioners from the beginning and were already part of the complainant's witness list. The petitioners had already examined defence witnesses pursuant to an earlier opportunity granted by the High Court. In that background, the request for further evidence at the stage of final arguments was treated as unnecessary and dilatory. The Court found no material showing that the proposed evidence was absolutely essential for a just decision.

Conclusion: The refusal to summon additional witnesses was upheld, against the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the trial court's refusal of both applications failed, and the interference sought in the supervisory petition was declined.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the accused has admitted the cheque signature and has already been granted a fair opportunity to lead defence evidence, further requests for expert examination or additional witnesses may be refused if they appear to be aimed at delaying the proceedings and are not shown to be essential for a just decision.

---