Accused has a right to present evidence for their defense, including expert handwriting analysis, to ensure a fair trial in cheque dishonour cases.

O R D E R

The order under challenge in this petition is the one rendered by the trial court concerned (Court of Judicial Ist Class Magistrate-II, Kattappana) on 10.10.2017 at Annexure-1, whereby the plea made by the accused for sending the cheque and other requisite specific materials for handwriting analysis by the experts of Forensic Science Laboratory has been rejected.

2. Heard Sri.S.Sachithananda Pai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (accused) and Srif.A.Shafeeq (Kayamkulam), learned counsel appearing for R-2 (complainant) and Sri.Jestin Mathew, learned Prosecutor appearing for R-1 (State).

3. After hearing both sides, this Court is appraised that the case set up by the complainant in his complaint is to the effect that all the handwritten entries as well as the signature in the dishonoured cheque involved in this case are that of the accused, whereas the case set up by the defence during cross-examination of PW1 is to the effect that all the handwritten entries in the cheque, except the signature, do not belong to the accused and that a blank signed cheque given to the complainant for some other transaction has been misused by him. Further that, PW1 (complainant) has reiterated in cross-examination that all the handwritten entries in the dishonoured cheque are that of the accused. It is on this basis that the petitioner (accused) had filed Crl.MP No.557/2017 in ST No.63/2016 with a prayer that the trial court should send the dishonoured cheque along with requisite materials for handwriting analysis by the experts of the Forensic Science Laboratory concerned. The said plea made by the accused has been rejected by the trial court as per the impugned Annexure-1 order dated 10.10.2017 on the ground that the said plea is belated and that the accused has not availed the opportunity to send reply to the statutory demand notice sent by the complainant and further that the complainant is justified to use a blank signed cheque, in the light of the dictum laid down by this Court in General Auto Sales v.

Vijayalakshmi, reported in 2005 (1) KLT 478 .

4. True that the accused has not sent any reply to the statutory demand notice sent by the complainant in terms of Section 138 proviso (b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act . But that is not certainly the end of the role to the accused. It is open to the accused to avail all reasonable evidences open to him in the manner known to law and to shape up his defence strategy in the manner as advised to him by the counsel of his choice and so long as the evidence sought to be adduced by the accused is on relevant aspects, the trial court ordinarily should accede to the request of the accused for availing such opportunity for defence evidence, unless the trial court is convinced that the said plea made by the accused is only to unnecessarily protract the proceedings and that no relevant or objective purpose would be subserved by such attempt to adduce defence evidence etc.

5. In the instant case, the case set up by the complainant is that the accused had voluntarily executed and issued the dishonoured cheque involved in this case and that all the handwritten entries and the signature in the said cheque were made by the accused, whereas the specific defence set up by the accused during the cross-examination of PW1 (complainant) is to the effect that a blank signed cheque issued by the accused to the complainant for some other transaction has been misused in this case and that he had never voluntarily executed and issued the cheque as alleged in the present complaint and that all the handwritten entries in the said cheque, except the signature, are not made by the accused etc. The dictum laid down by this Court in General Auto Sales v. Vijayalakshmi , reported in 2005 (1) KLT 478 is on an entirely different factual matrix, where the complainant has got a case that a blank signed cheque was issued to him on condition that he could encash the cheque as agreed to between the parties, then