https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304388 In a section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act prosecution, the High Court held that a request to send the cheque to a handwriting expert for examining filled-in particulars could be refused where the signature was admitted, there were no visible alterations, and the defence of later filling of blank cheques could be tested by evidence. Section 243(2) CrPC gives the accused a right to summon evidence, but that right is subject to the Magistrate's discretion to prevent vexation, delay, or misuse of process. The belated application, together with the absence of any reply to the statutory notice, supported the finding that the request was not bona fide, and the refusal was upheld. en-us Wed, 12 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Sep 2022 09:37:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304388 In a section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act prosecution, the High Court held that a request to send the cheque to a handwriting expert for examining filled-in particulars could be refused where the signature was admitted, there were no visible alterations, and the defence of later filling of blank cheques could be tested by evidence. Section 243(2) CrPC gives the accused a right to summon evidence, but that right is subject to the Magistrate's discretion to prevent vexation, delay, or misuse of process. The belated application, together with the absence of any reply to the statutory notice, supported the finding that the request was not bona fide, and the refusal was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 12 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304388