The court emphasized that the discretion to allow the accused to produce witnesses in support of his defense should be balanced with the need to avoid prolonging the proceedings and to expedite the disposal of cases, in line with the legislative intent.

N. A. Britto, J. : The short question for consideration before this Court is whether the exercise of discretion by the learned J.M.F.C. in rejecting the application dated 11-3-2005 is proper and legal ?

2. To answer the said question a few facts are required to be stated. The applicant herein is the accused in C.C. No.412/OA/04/B in which he is being prosecuted by the respondent/Complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Act, for short) for bouncing of two cheques in the sum of Rs.3,35,000/- and Rs.60,000/- dated 4-12-2003 and 4-7-2004 respectively. The applicant/accused did not deny that he had signed the said two cheques but it was his contention that the body of the cheque or the remaining particulars were not written by him. Likewise, it was his contention that he had not signed the A.D. card of the statutory notice sent to him by the Complainant.

3. After the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(Code, for short), the accused filed an application dated 11-3-2005 praying therein that the said two cheques be sent to the handwriting expert(Government Examiner of Questioned Documents) at Hyderabad along with the specimen writings of the accused to find out whether the writings on the said cheques are really of the accused or not. Likewise, the accused also prayed that the signature on the A.D. card may also be sent for comparison to find out whether the signature therein was really that of the accused. Admittedly, the said application was filed under Section 254(2) of the Code.

4. The learned J.M.F.C. referred to the case of Lilykutty v. Lawrance (2003(2) DCR 610) to say that no law provided that the entire body of the cheque had to be written by the drawer and also to the case of K. Bhaskaram v. Shankar V. Balan (1999 Cri.L.J. 606) to say that once the sender had despatched the notice by post with the correct address written on it then it is deemed to have been served on the sender unless the sender proves that it was not really served. The learned trial Court also came to the conclusion that it was not material to find out whether the contents of the cheque were in the handwriting of the accused or not. The learned trial Court also felt that the opinion of the handwriting expert would not help the Court to decide on the controversy/dispute between the parties but would only delay the trial of the case and, therefore, proceeded to dismiss the application filed by the accused.

5. The accused filed a revision against the said Order of the learned J.M.F.C. to the Court of Sessions but the learned Additional Sessions Judge by her Order dated 14-9-2005 proceeded to dismiss the same. In dismissing the revision application the learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that a perusal of the cross examination of the Complainant had revealed that it was suggested to him that the said cheques were issued without date and amount and the said date and amount were filled in by the Complainant without the knowledge or acknowledgement of the accused. The learned Additional Sessions Judge relying on the same Judgments as relied upon by the trial Court, came to the conclusion that sending the said cheques and the A.D. card would be a futile exercise and, therefore, no interference was called for with the impugned Order.

6. The said Orders of the Courts below are now under challenge in a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code and it is the contention of the accused that his defence has been seriously prejudiced by not sending the said cheques and the said A.D. cards for the opinion of the said handwriting expert since by not sending the same the accused would be prejudiced from rebutting the presumption available in favour of the Complainant. The accused has also contended that the Court ought not to take the role of the handwriting expert specially when the handwriting is disputed by the accused. On behalf of the Complainant, an affidavit has be