https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304131 An accused in a Section 138 complaint has a fair-trial right to lead defence evidence, including a request for handwriting expert comparison of disputed pronote and cheque signatures, but that right is not absolute and may be refused under Section 243(2) CrPC if the request is vexatious, dilatory, or contrary to the ends of justice. A second application seeking substantially the same relief, even with a changed document, was treated as an attempt to reopen an earlier refusal and delay the trial, and was held not maintainable. The accused was nonetheless allowed a limited opportunity to examine an expert at his own cost within the time fixed by the Court. en-us Wed, 29 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Oct 2023 12:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304131 An accused in a Section 138 complaint has a fair-trial right to lead defence evidence, including a request for handwriting expert comparison of disputed pronote and cheque signatures, but that right is not absolute and may be refused under Section 243(2) CrPC if the request is vexatious, dilatory, or contrary to the ends of justice. A second application seeking substantially the same relief, even with a changed document, was treated as an attempt to reopen an earlier refusal and delay the trial, and was held not maintainable. The accused was nonetheless allowed a limited opportunity to examine an expert at his own cost within the time fixed by the Court. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 29 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304131