Belated handwriting-expert examination applications filed after evidence closure without explanation may be rejected.

The respondent instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging dishonour of a cheque issued by the petitioner.

The petitioner denied knowing the respondent or issuing the cheque, asserting that it was a blank signed cheque previously handed over to Uttam Tiwari in connection with another transaction and was later misused. He also disputed the writings, date, alterations, ink, and signature appearing on the cheque.

The complaint was filed on 28.02.2017. The complainant’s evidence was completed on 13.12.2018, the petitioner’s statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 13.09.2019, and the petitioner’s evidence and cross-examination concluded on 03.12.2022. When the matter had reached the stage of final arguments, the petitioner filed an application dated 19.01.2023 seeking examination of the cheque by a handwriting/forensic expert.

The JMFC, Budhar rejected the application on 20.03.2023, holding that it was belated and appeared intended to delay the proceedings. The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the petitioner’s revision on 16.05.2025. The petitioner consequently invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to have the disputed cheque examined by a handwriting or forensic expert after the completion of evidence and at the stage of final arguments?

Whether the Trial Court and Revisional Court committed any patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error, or material irregularity warranting interference under Section 528 BNSS?

The Court applied Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, governing liability for dishonour of a cheque.

The Court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to the former Section 482 Cr.P.C., which preserves the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

The Court held that although an accused is entitled to a fair opportunity to establish a defence, that right is not unbridled and must be exercised with due diligence.

An application for expert examination filed after closure of evidence, without a satisfactory explanation for the delay, may be rejected where it appears designed to delay the proceedings.

Inherent jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used to substitute the discretionary orders of subordinate courts unless they disclose patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error, or manifest miscarriage of justice.

The Court noted that the petitioner had been aware from the outset of his defence that the cheque had been misused and that he disputed the writings and signature upon it.

Despite having several opportunities—during the complainant’s evidence, at the stage of his Section 313 statement, and during his own evidence—he did not seek expert examination until after the evidence had concluded and the matter had reached final arguments.

The petitioner offered no satisfactory explanation for this delay. Accordingly, the Trial Court was justified in treating the application as belated and potentially intended to prolong the trial, and the Revisional Court properly affirmed that conclusion.

The mere assertion that the signature near the corrected date was forged did not create an automatic right to expert examination at any stage of the proceedings.

Since the subordinate courts had given cogent reasons and no perversity, illegality, or material irregularity was shown, interference under Section 528 BNSS was unwarranted.

It held that the application for handwriting/forensic examination was filed after an unexplained and substantial delay, following closure of evidence, and was therefore rightly rejected.

The orders dated 20.03.2023 of the JMFC, Budhar, and 16.05.2025 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Budhar, were upheld as free from jurisdictional error or perversity.

The petition under Section 528 BNSS was consequently dismissed.