2018 (7) TMI 2079 - HC - Indian Laws

Rejection of Application for examination of handwriting expert - petitioner submitted that reasoning assigned for the purpose of entertaining the petitioners application for examination of handwriting expert stated in para 3 is arbitrary and illegal - whether petitioner can seek necessary relief in respect of examining handwriting expert in the present case or not? - HELD THAT - Section 243(2) is clear that a Magistrate holding an inquiry under CrPC in respect of an offence triable by him does not exceed his powers under Section 243(2) if, in the interest of justice, he directs to send the document for enabling the same to be compared by a 2 of 4 handwriting expert because even in adopting this course, the purpose is to enable the Magistrate to compare the disputed signature or writing with the admitted writing or signature of the accused and to reach his own conclusion with the assistance of the expert. The appellant is entitled to rebut the case of the respondent and if the document viz. the cheque on which the respondent has relied upon for initiating criminal proceedings against the appellant would furnish good material for rebutting that case, the Magistrate having declined to send the document for the examination and opinion of the handwriting expert has deprived the appellant of an opportunity of rebutting it. The appellant cannot be convicted without an opportunity being given to her to present her evidence and if it is denied to her, there is no fair trial. Fair trial includes fair and proper opportunities allowed by law to prove her innocence. Adducing evidence in support of the defence is a valuable right. Denial of that right means denial of fair trial. It is essential that rules of procedure designed to ensure justice should be scrupulously followed, and the courts should be jealous in seeing that there is no breach of them. The impugned judgment cannot be sustained - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Rejection of the petitioner's application for examining a handwriting expert by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh.
- Interpretation of Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding the relevance of signatures and the necessity of examining a handwriting expert.
- Application of legal principles from previous court decisions regarding the examination of handwriting experts in criminal proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the rejection of their application to examine a handwriting expert in relation to a complaint filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the reasoning given for rejecting the application was arbitrary and illegal, emphasizing that there should be no obstacle to examining a handwriting expert for a specific document. The respondent's counsel countered this by stating that the JMIC did not commit any errors in the rejection orders and cited Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to argue that only signatures are relevant, questioning the necessity of a handwriting expert examination.

2. The High Court analyzed the crux of the matter to be whether the petitioner could seek relief in examining a handwriting expert. The court found the reasoning of the JMIC to be incorrect and referred to a Supreme Court decision highlighting the importance of allowing the accused to present evidence, including expert opinions, to ensure a fair trial. The court emphasized that fair trial includes the right to present evidence for the defense and that denial of this right would violate the principles of justice.

3. Despite the respondent's argument that the application was wrongly made under Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court held that the rejection of the application was not justified. The court set aside the impugned judgment and directed the trial court to examine a handwriting expert on behalf of the petitioners within a reasonable period of 2 months. The court concluded that Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act should not hinder the examination of a handwriting expert as requested by the petitioners, ensuring a fair trial without prejudice to the respondent.

4. In conclusion, the High Court allowed the petition, emphasizing the importance of allowing the petitioner to present expert evidence and ensuring a fair trial by examining a handwriting expert as requested. The court set aside the rejection orders and directed the trial court to proceed with the examination within a specified timeframe, ensuring justice and adherence to legal procedures.