The court emphasized the necessity of addressing prior forensic reports before seeking additional expert testimony in trials, reaffirming the right to fair trial procedures.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present petition has been filed against the order dated 16.06.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., vide which the application filed under Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent/complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner/accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘NI Act’). The respondent/complainant availed of 25 opportunities and closed the evidence on 23.7.2024. T.he statement of the petitioner/accused was recorded under section 313 of the CrPC. The petitioner/accused examined a private Forensic Expert as DW2, who tendered a Forensic Report (Ex-DW2/A) and opined that the signatures and handwriting on the cheque are not those of the petitioner/accused. He ardmitted in his cross-examination that he did not have the original record, and he had compared the photocopies. The learned Trial Court discarded the evidence of the Expert and prejudiced the defence of the petitioner/accused. The petition er/accused examined the Customer Relationship Officer of Federal Bank, Ludhiana, who brought the original record containing the signatures of the petitioner/accused. The learned H Trial Court gave its opinion that the complaint would be allowed, hence, the petitioner/accused filed an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for the comparison of his signatures through a Government Forensic Expert. The application was opposed by the respondent/complainant. A rejoinder was filed. The petitioner/accused also applied Section 315 of the Cr. P.C. for examining himself as his witness. The right to a fair trial of the petitioner/accused was violated. The signatures of the petitioner/accused were forged, and it is necessary to compare the signatures to arrive at the truth. Hence, it was pra.yed that the present petition be allowed and the signatures be sent to the expert for comparison.

3. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in rejecting the application for leading additional evidence. This is violative of the right to a fair trial. He relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in Cr.MMO No.806 of 2023 , titled Saroj Kumari Vs. Harminder decided on 05.12.2023, in support of his submission.

4. I have given considerable thought to his submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

5. It is undisputed that the petitioner/accused had obtained the report from the Forensic Expert who was examined as DW2 before the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court noticed in its order that the report of the Forensic Expert has not been set aside, and the second Expert cannot be appointed. He relied upon the judgment passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case titled R. Bhaskar Reddy Vs. Chinni @ Chengal Reddy [(1998) 3 ALD 113].

6. Since the report of the Forensic Expert examined by the petitioner is still on record and has not been set aside, therefore, the learned Trial Court had rightly held thfat there was no necessity to send the signatures for comparison to another Forensic Expert. It was laid down by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Santhosh K.S. vs. State of Kerala and Ors. (24.09.2024 - KERHC): MANU/KE/3572/2024 that the accused cannot insist that the disputed signatures be sent to another laboratory after getting adverse report. It was observed:

9. In the impugned Annexure A8 order dated 17.12.2024, the learned Magistrate has specifically mentioned that the expert who compared the signatures and prepared the Forensic Reports has not been examined by the accused as a witness. Without examining the said expert and analysing the opinion give