Late defence evidence and admitted cheque liability justified refusal of document exhibition and forensic examination.

Revisional interference was declined where the accused had already had sufficient opportunity to produce defence documents and sought to exhibit them only after closure of evidence, when the case stood posted for arguments. The court held that such a late request lacked bona fides and that, in revision, a trial court's choice between two reasonably possible views does not warrant interference; the rejection under section 294 CrPC was upheld without affecting fair trial rights. The court also upheld refusal to send an admitted cheque for forensic examination under section 243 CrPC read with section 45 of the Evidence Act, noting the admitted issuance, signature, firm seal, and underlying liability, and that scientific testing would serve no useful purpose.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the rejection of the application under section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to exhibit documents after closure of defence evidence was justified; (ii) Whether the rejection of the application under section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for sending the cheque to the forensic laboratory was justified.

Issue (i): Whether the rejection of the application under section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to exhibit documents after closure of defence evidence was justified.

Analysis: The petitioner had already had sufficient opportunity to produce and prove the documents during defence evidence. The application was made after closure of evidence and when the case was posted for arguments, which supported the inference that the request lacked bona fides. In revisional jurisdiction, where the trial court has taken one of two reasonably possible views, interference is not warranted merely because another view is possible. The rejection did not violate the right to fair trial.

Conclusion: The rejection of the application under section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the rejection of the application under section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for sending the cheque to the forensic laboratory was justified.

Analysis: The petitioner had admitted issuance of the cheque, his signature, the seal of his firm, and the underlying liability. In that factual setting, sending the admitted cheque for forensic opinion would not serve a useful purpose, and the accused could not avoid the reverse burden merely by seeking scientific examination. The trial court's view suffered from no illegality or impropriety.

Conclusion: The rejection of the application for forensic examination was upheld.

Final Conclusion: No ground was made out for interference with the impugned order, and the revision petition failed.

---