2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 12539

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Anil Kumar Jukanti, J
Padala Narayana Goud – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
Criminal Petition Nos.7590 | 7592 | 7598 | 7599 | 7600 | 7601 | 7602 | 7603 of 2025

A court cannot reject a request for forensic examination of a disputed signature simply because the comparison documents were created after the impugned instrument. When a signature is denied, the Court should facilitate expert comparison to ensure a fair trial and allow for the rebuttal of legal presumptions.

Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 311A, 451, 91(1) - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 45, 47, 73 - Dishonour of cheque - Rejection of application to send disputed signature for expert opinion - Criminal proceedings pending for nine years - Trial Court dismissed application on the ground that signatures on court documents were not 'contemporary' and that presumption under Section 138 arises against the accused - Held, rejection of such application on grounds of non-contemporaneity of subsequent court documents is a misconception of law - Presumption under Section 138 of the Act does not preclude an accused from seeking scientific verification of disputed signatures - Court is empowered to compare signatures or direct expert analysis to aid in reaching a just conclusion. (Paras 15, 23, 28, 45, 46)

(B) Expert Evidence - Power of Court - Comparison of handwriting - Under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, the Court has the power to direct comparison of disputed signatures with admitted or proved ones - While courts should be cautious and not act as experts, they may seek expert opinion to verify signatures when the same is denied by the drawer - Expert opinion is aids the Court and is subject to scrutiny of credibility. (Paras 31, 35, 41)

Facts of the case:
A series of criminal petitions were filed challenging the trial court orders that dismissed applications seeking to send the accused's signature on disputed cheques and court-filed documents to a forensic laboratory. The trial court had reasoned that signatures on documents like the memo of appearance and deposition records were not 'contemporary' to the date of the cheque and therefore could not be used for comparison, further noting that the presumption under the Act shifted the burden onto the accused.

Findings of Court:
The trial court fundamentally erred in its reasoning by dismissing the prayer for scientific comparison based on the timing of the court documents. Procedural documents necessarily follow the institution of the complaint and are valid sources for comparison under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. The judicial process requires a fair opportunity for the accused to rebut the presumption under Section 138, and refusing such analysis denies that right.

Issues: Whether a trial court is justified in refusing a request to refer disputed cheque signatures for forensic examination on the grounds that comparison documents (court filings) are not 'contemporary' and that a presumption has already arisen against the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that refusing to refer disputed signatures for forensic analysis based on the non-contemporaneity of court-annexed documents is legally untenable. The Court has a duty to ensure a just and fair trial by allowing scientific assistance (forensic analysis) when the foundational signature on a negotiable instrument is categorically disputed, providing the accused a fair chance to rebut legal presumptions.

Result: Criminal petitions were allowed; impugned orders were quashed with liberty granted to file fresh applications for forensic analysis.