https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424069 An accused in a cheque dishonour prosecution is ordinarily entitled under Section 243(2) CrPC to summon defence evidence after entering upon defence, unless the request is shown to be vexatious, dilatory, or contrary to the ends of justice, with reasons recorded. Admitted signature on the cheque does not by itself bar expert examination where the defence is that the cheque body or particulars were filled by another person or the instrument was misused. The accused remains entitled to lead evidence to rebut the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the refusal of handwriting and fingerprint expert evidence solely because the signature was admitted was unsustainable. en-us Mon, 13 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Jun 2022 20:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424069 An accused in a cheque dishonour prosecution is ordinarily entitled under Section 243(2) CrPC to summon defence evidence after entering upon defence, unless the request is shown to be vexatious, dilatory, or contrary to the ends of justice, with reasons recorded. Admitted signature on the cheque does not by itself bar expert examination where the defence is that the cheque body or particulars were filled by another person or the instrument was misused. The accused remains entitled to lead evidence to rebut the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the refusal of handwriting and fingerprint expert evidence solely because the signature was admitted was unsustainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 13 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424069