Expert opinion on disputed signatures is not necessary if signature is not disputed by the accused.

ORDER

Dated this the 17th day of December, 2024

This Crl.M.C. is filed challenging Annexure 7 order, rejecting the petition filed, seeking to forward Exhibit P1 cheque for expert opinion. The short facts are as under:

The petitioner is the complainant in C.C.No.4740 of 2024 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakauda, filed against the 2nd respondent, alleging commission of offence under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881. After the closure of evidence, the petition for sending Exhibit P1 cheque for forensic examination was filed, citing denial of her signature in Exhibit P8 promissory note and the entries in Exhibit P1 cheque by the accused. The trial court, after careful scrutiny of the evidence, found that the accused had denied issuance of cheque or disputed her signature in it. It was held that the dispute regarding issuance of Exhibit P8 promissory note and its corroborative value is to be decided after evaluation of the entire evidence on record and such procedure is not warranted at this stage. It was further held that there is no need to obtain expert opinion as it is not substantive evidence or conclusive proof.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner drew attention to the 313 statement of the accused, to contend that execution of the cheque is denied.

Reference is made to Annexure 4 additional statement filed by the accused, wherein the accused has stated that a signed blank cheque was actually entrusted to one ‘Usha Nandakumar’. It is contended that the defence taken up by the accused has made it imperative for the petitioner to obtain expert opinion regarding the entries in the cheque and the signature in the promissory note.

3. Learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that the petition under Section 311, does not contain a prayer for sending Exhibit P8 promissory note for expert opinion. It is submitted that the specific case of the accused is that a blank signed cheque entrusted with ‘Usha Nandakumar’ was misused by the petitioner.

4. A close scrutiny of the petition under Section 311 reveals that the prayer therein is to send Exhibit P1 cheque and contemporaneous documents for expert analysis. The accused having not denied her signature in the cheque, expert opinion regarding the signature on Exhibit P1 is unnecessary. As rightly held by the trial court, dispute regarding the issuance of Exhibit P8 promissory note and its corroborative value are to be decided by evaluating the entire evidence. Moreover, going by Section 73 of the Evidence Act , the Magistrate himself can compare the disputed and admitted signatures and form an opinion regarding the genuineness or otherwise of the signatures in Exhibits P1 and P8.

The Crl.M.C is hence dismissed, leaving it open for the parties to raise all contentions before the trial court.