The court established that an accused is entitled to prove innocence through forensic analysis, and that a Magistrate's refusal based on unsubstantiated reasons is legally unsustainable.

O R D E R

The dismissal of a petition filed by the accused in S.T No.4/2017, a case relating to the commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , to send the impugned cheque to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis of the signatures and writings therein, is under challenge in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

2. The petitioner/accused filed C.M.P No.298/2019 before the learned Magistrate with a request to send the impugned cheque to the State Forensic Science Laboratory for the comparison of the signature and writings in the aforesaid cheque with his admitted/undisputed signature and writings. The aforesaid petition was filed at a time when the entire evidence in that case was over and the matter stood posted for final hearing. The learned Magistrate dismissed the above petition for the following reasons:

i) Since the accused has disputed his signature and writings in the cheque, it is upto the complainant to establish the execution of the aforesaid cheque by the accused.

ii) The accused was found to have put his signature differently in the vakalath, affidavit, acknowledgement card etc., and hence no fruitful purpose could be achieved by the analysis of the signature in the impugned cheque.

iii) The difference in handwritings or the nature of the ink in the other writings in the cheque, are of no consequence since it is not necessary that the accused himself shall make the entries in the cheque.

iv) The opinion of the expert, making comparison of the signatures and writings, is not conclusive proof.

v) The petition is filed after the closure of the entire evidence, as part of delaying tactics of the accused.

3. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that the reasons stated by the learned Magistrate to disallow his prayer to send the impugned cheque to the Forensic Science Laboratory, for analysis of the signature and writings, are not legally sustainable. According to the petitioner, the analysis of the impugned cheque, as prayed for by him, is highly necessary to prove his innocence.

4. Though notice was duly served to the first respondent / de facto complainant, he did not choose to file any counter.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

6. The reasons stated by the learned Magistrate to disallow the request of the petitioner/accused to send the disputed cheque to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysing the signature found in it, are not legally sound. The mere fact that the learned Magistrate, upon personal observation, found the admitted signatures of the petitioner / accused in various documents like affidavit, vakalath, acknowledgement card etc., differing in its appearance, cannot be a reason to reject the request of the petitioner/accused to have an expert opinion as to whether the signature in the impugned cheque had been affixed by him. It is pertinent to note that, the comparison of the signature in the impugned cheque has to be made with the contemporaneous admitted or undisputed signatures of the petitioner/accused in or around 2014, which is the year in which the aforesaid cheque is alleged to have been signed and issued by the petitioner/accused. The mere fact that the present signatures of the accused found in various documents differed in appearance, is of no consequence since the comparison of the signature found in the impugned cheque has to be made not with the signatures affixed by the petitioner/accused recently. Therefore, the reason stated by the learned Magistrate in the above regard for disallowing the request of the petitioner/accused is not legally sustainable.

7. It is true that, in a criminal prosecution under Section 138 of the