Belated forensic examination of cheque signatures cannot be used to fill defence lacunae after final arguments.

A belated request for forensic examination of disputed cheque signatures, made after the matter had reached final arguments, was refused because the signature dispute was apparent from the dishonour memo from the outset and the accused had already entered appearance without leading defence evidence. The court treated the application as an attempt to introduce evidence indirectly and to fill gaps in the defence case without satisfactory justification. The rejection of the request for recall of the cheques and related documents was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused were entitled to recall the cheques and related documents for forensic examination of signatures at the stage when the matter was already at final arguments, and whether the rejection of the application under the procedural provision warranted interference.

Analysis: The dishonour memo itself indicated that the cheque was returned because the drawer's signature differed, so the dispute regarding signatures was known from the outset. The accused had already entered appearance, their statement had been recorded, and they had chosen not to lead defence evidence. The request for forensic examination was made belatedly, after the case had progressed to final arguments, and the application appeared to be an indirect attempt to adduce evidence that had not been produced earlier. In these circumstances, the request did not disclose sufficient justification for the extraordinary procedural relief sought.

Conclusion: The rejection of the application for forensic examination was upheld, and the petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A belated application for forensic examination of disputed cheque signatures, filed after the matter has reached final arguments and without a satisfactory explanation, cannot be used as a circuitous means to introduce defence evidence or fill lacunae in the defence case.

---