Handwriting comparison in cheque dishonour cases is required when signature on the liability document is disputed.

Where a complainant relies on a disputed document to prove liability in a Section 138 NI Act prosecution, denial of the signature on that document requires proper proof of execution; the Section 139 presumption does not eliminate that requirement. If admitted signatures are available, comparison under the Evidence Act provisions on handwriting and signatures, including expert examination, is a proper course to reach a just decision. On that basis, refusal to send the disputed document for handwriting comparison was unsustainable, and the document had to be examined against the accused's admitted signatures.

---

---

Issues: Whether the disputed signature appearing on Exhibit-2, relied upon by the complainant to prove the alleged debt or liability in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, should be sent for comparison by a handwriting expert with the admitted signatures of the accused.

Analysis: The complainant relied on Exhibit-2 as proof of the alleged existing liability, while the accused specifically denied the signature on that document and relied on admitted signatures appearing on other exhibits. In such a situation, the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not dispense with proof of the execution of the document relied upon by the complainant. The relevant provisions governing proof of handwriting and signatures are Section 45, Section 47, Section 67 and Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. Where execution of the disputed document is denied and admitted writings are available for comparison, expert comparison is a proper course for arriving at a just decision.

Conclusion: The refusal to send Exhibit-2 for handwriting comparison was unsustainable, and the disputed document was required to be examined by a handwriting expert with the admitted signatures of the accused.

---