An accused in a cheque dishonour case has the fundamental right to have a disputed signature analyzed by a forensic expert to rebut the statutory presumption of liability, and the denial of such an opportunity at the defense stage constitutes a violation of the right to a fair trial.

ORDER :

1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 02.03.2015, passed by Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Gangapur City, Sawai Madhopur in Criminal Case No.335/2012, by which the application submitted by the accused-petitioner under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short “the Act of 1872”) for analysis of his signatures on the cheque in question by a handwriting expert from the Forensic Science Laboratory (for short “the FSL”) has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused- petitioner has not issued any cheque to the complainant-respondent and therefore he could not have signed the same. Learned counsel submits that this has been his precise case right from the beginning when he received a notice from the complainant-respondent after dishonour of the cheque in question and he has taken the same defence at every stage of the trial. Learned counsel submits that when the case reached the stage of recording the evidence of the accused-petitioner, he submitted the above-mentioned application under Section 45 of the Act of 1872, with the prayer to allow FSL examination of the signatures on the cheque in question by a handwriting expert. The aforementioned prayer of the accused-petitioner has been declined by the court below, hence, he has approached this Court by way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition.

3. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kalyani Baskar Vs. M.S. Sampoornam , (2007) 2 SCC 258.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant-respondent opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the accused-petitioner and submitted that, the aforementioned application under Section 45 of the Act of 1872 has been submitted by the petitioner at the fag end of the trial in order to delay disposal of the same. Learned counsel submits that the court below has not committed any error in passing the impugned order, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted and the instant petition is liable to be rejected.

5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.

6. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner is facing trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the Act of 1881”) in the proceedings arising out of the complaint filed by the complainant- respondent against the accused-petitioner before the court of Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Gangapur City, Sawai Madhopur. The documents annexed with the instant petition indicate that the cheque bearing No.106880 dated 31.03.2011, was presented by the complainant-respondent before his banker and the same was dishonoured by the bank with the remark “funds insufficient”. After dishonour of the cheque, the complainant-respondent served a legal notice upon the accused-petitioner for refund of the cheque amount and since receipt of the aforesaid notice, the accused- petitioner has disputed the signatures over the cheque in question with the averment in his reply that he never issued such a cheque in favour of the complainant-respondent.

7. It appears that trial has commenced and after recording the statement of the complainant-respondent, when the trial reac