Cheque dishonour defence evidence allowed where drawer admits signature but disputes who filled the cheque body.

In a cheque dishonour prosecution, an accused who admits signing the cheque but disputes who filled in the body of the cheque may lead handwriting-expert evidence in defence. The court emphasised that the accused retains a valuable right to rebut the statutory presumptions and to support a plea of misuse, security cheque, or interpolation. The fact that a signed cheque may lawfully be completed by another person does not, by itself, defeat a bona fide request for expert comparison. Refusal to permit such defence evidence was held unsustainable, and the impugned orders were quashed with liberty to adduce the evidence and proceed expeditiously.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a prosecution for dishonour of cheque, the accused who admits her signatures on the cheque but alleges that the body of the cheque was filled by the complainant or another person is entitled to examine a handwriting expert in defence.

Analysis: The defence evidence sought by the accused was directed at testing the plea that the cheque was a security cheque and that the writings on the cheque body were not in her handwriting. The governing principle is that an accused has a valuable right to adduce evidence in rebuttal and that the court should not shut out a bona fide defence at the threshold. The fact that the signatory of a cheque need not be the person who filled in its contents does not by itself answer the accused's request for expert comparison, because the accused is still entitled to attempt rebuttal of the statutory presumptions and to show misuse of the cheque. The authorities relied upon by the complainant recognise the validity of a signed cheque even if filled by another person, but they do not negate the accused's right to lead defence evidence where misuse and interpolation are specifically alleged.

Conclusion: The accused was entitled to examine a handwriting expert in defence, and the refusal to permit such evidence was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were quashed and the accused was allowed to lead the requested defence evidence, with the trial directed to proceed expeditiously.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the drawer of a cheque admits the signature but specifically disputes the authorship of the body of the cheque and alleges misuse or interpolation, the accused cannot be denied a fair opportunity to lead handwriting-expert evidence in defence merely because the holder may lawfully fill in the cheque contents.

---