Right to defence evidence in cheque dishonour cases may be refused when the request is belated, unnecessary, and delays trial.

An accused in a cheque dishonour prosecution has a fair-trial right to lead defence evidence and seek expert assistance, and Section 243(2) CrPC recognises a real opportunity to rebut the prosecution case. That right is not absolute: under the scheme of Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the requirement of expeditious disposal in Section 143(3), a court may refuse a belated or unnecessary request, especially where the application appears intended to delay the trial. On the stated facts, repeated delay, prior opportunity, and the accused's admissions made handwriting examination unnecessary, so the request was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused was entitled to be permitted to lead further defence evidence and to have the cheque sent for handwriting expert opinion despite the stage of the trial and the delay in the proceedings.

Analysis: The right of an accused to a fair trial includes a real opportunity to defend and to adduce rebuttal evidence, and Section 243(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 recognizes that entitlement. In cheque dishonour cases, the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 do not extinguish the accused's opportunity to rebut the case, and Section 143(3) of that Act requires expeditious disposal. At the same time, the Court may refuse a belated or irrelevant request where the conduct of the accused shows that the application is intended to protract the trial. On the facts, the accused had already been given sufficient opportunity, had delayed the matter repeatedly, and had also admitted in cross-examination that the signature and amount on the cheque were written by him, making the proposed handwriting examination unnecessary.

Conclusion: The request to lead further defence evidence and to send the cheque for handwriting expert opinion was rightly refused, and the challenge to the impugned orders failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition did not succeed and the orders of the courts below were sustained, with costs imposed on the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: An accused has a right to lead defence evidence and seek expert assistance, but that right is not absolute and may be refused where the application is belated, lacks utility, or is made to delay or protract the trial.

---