Cheque dishonour conviction upheld where liability, dishonour, notice, and non-payment were proved; belated expert request properly refused.

A belated defence request to send a cheque for handwriting expert opinion was properly refused where it was made after the accused had entered defence, the matter was at the argument stage, and the trial court recorded reasons under Section 243 CrPC; the refusal did not vitiate the trial or deny a fair opportunity. Conviction for cheque dishonour under the Negotiable Instruments Act was sustained because the evidence proved the business liability, issuance and dishonour of the cheque, service of demand notice, and non-payment, while the bank manager's evidence and signature comparison under Section 73 of the Evidence Act supported the findings. The revision failed and the conviction and sentence were maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether rejection of the accused's prayer to send the cheque for handwriting expert opinion vitiated the trial and denied a fair opportunity of defence; (ii) Whether the conviction for dishonour of cheque under the Negotiable Instruments Act was sustainable on the evidence.

Issue (i): Whether rejection of the accused's prayer to send the cheque for handwriting expert opinion vitiated the trial and denied a fair opportunity of defence.

Analysis: The prayer was made after the accused had entered upon defence and the case was posted for argument. The Court noted that under Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a request for production of a document or other thing may be refused if it is made for vexation, delay, or defeating the ends of justice, and reasons must be recorded. The trial court had recorded reasons for rejecting the request, and the Court held that the accused had already been given adequate opportunity to rebut the prosecution case. The reliance on fair trial principles did not assist the accused on these facts.

Conclusion: The rejection of the request did not vitiate the trial and did not entitle the accused to acquittal.

Issue (ii): Whether the conviction for dishonour of cheque under the Negotiable Instruments Act was sustainable on the evidence.

Analysis: The evidence showed a joint business arrangement, issuance of the cheque towards an existing liability, dishonour for insufficiency of funds, service of demand notice, and non-payment thereafter. The bank manager's evidence supported the genuineness of the signatures and the dishonour. The Court also upheld the Sessions Judge's power to compare signatures under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The concurrent findings of the courts below were found to be based on proper appreciation of evidence and free from infirmity.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were sustained.

Final Conclusion: The revision petition failed, and the conviction and consequential direction to pay the fine to the complainant were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: A court may refuse a belated defence request for expert comparison of a document when adequate opportunity has already been afforded and the refusal is supported by recorded reasons; concurrent findings of guilt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 will not be disturbed where the cheque, dishonour, notice, and liability are proved by reliable evidence.

---