A signature on a cheque validates it regardless of who filled its contents; the accused's right to a fair trial includes opportunities to present evidence, provided it is not vexatious.

ORDER :

S.PUJAHARI, J.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the Petitioner with a prayer to quash the order dated 23^rd October, 2021 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Balsore in 1.C.C. No.318 of 2009 whereby the application filed by him for obtaining opinion of the handwriting expert with regard to the alleged manipulation/forgery committed by the Opposite Party on the cheque, has been rejected.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned counsel for the Opposite Party-Complainant.

4. As it appears, the Petitioner is facing trial in a case punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act for drawing offending cheque of amount of Rs.4,50,000/-. Though the case is triable by summery procedure, unfortunately it is lingering since 2009. None of the successive Magistrates appears to have bestowed their care to dispose of the same expeditiously. However, the parties at different points of time have contributed to the delay in disposal of the case. The parties may adopt such tactics, but the Court should remain alert and take such steps as to defeat the delay tactics, if any, adopted by them. The Petitioner made a prayer in his defence for sending the cheque to handwriting expert at his own cost on the ground that the amount mentioned in the cheque was not in his own hand and that the same has been mentioned by interpolation. The case was already at the stage of argument. The trial court looking at the cheque and also the handwriting of the Petitioner and the signature of the Petitioner, rejected the contention with regard to interpolation which was not visible to the open eye. Challenging the same, the Petitioner has come to this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that defend oneself is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution of India. For the purpose, when the Petitioner wants to adduce defence evidence to rebut the presumption that the complainant was the holder of the cheque in due course and the cheque was drawn by the Petitioner for discharge of any debt or liability either partly or wholly seeing that he had not drawn the cheque as the body of the cheque was not filled by him, the trial court could not have refused to allow such prayer of the Petitioner. In this regard he has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of G. Someshwar Rao v. Samineni Nageshwar Rao & Anr., reported in (2009) 14 SCC 677 ; Mrs. Kalyani Baskar v. Mrs. M.S. Sampoornam , reported in (2007) 2 SCC 258 ; and M/s. Survika Distributors Pvt. Ltd. & Another vrs. M/s. S.R. Retail Zone Pvt. Ltd. (CRLMC No.219 of 2012, decided by this Court on 05.02.2018).

6. In the case of G. Someshwar Rao (supra), the Apex Court have held as follows:-

“10. Indisputably, an accused is entitled to a fair trial which is a part of his fundamental right as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The concept, however, cannot be put to a straight jacket formula. A court of law will have to consider each application filed by an accused praying for comparison of his signature on a disputed document with his admitted signature on its own merits. No hard and fast rule can be laid down therefor.

11. Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides for grant of an opportunity to the defendant to lead evidence in his defence as also to file a written statement, sub-section (2) whereof reads as under :

"243. Evidence for defence.- (1) ... ... ... (2) If the accused, after he had entered upon his defence, applies to the Magistrate to issue any process for compelling the attendance