Failure to challenge signature testimony justifies rejecting a request for handwriting-expert examination.

The petitioner was an accused in Complaint Case No. 6061 of 2022 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant alleged that the petitioner had issued the dishonoured cheque towards repayment of an advance amount received under an agreement for sale dated 01.06.2021.

The complainant, examined as C.W.-1, proved the agreement as Exhibit C-2/CW-1 and stated that it bore the petitioner’s signature as seller. During cross-examination, the petitioner did not challenge the genuineness of the signature or suggest that it was forged.

The petitioner also did not dispute the signature in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

After the matter was fixed for defence evidence, the petitioner filed an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, asserting that the signature on Exhibit C-2/CW-1 was forged and seeking its examination by a handwriting expert at the Forensic Science Laboratory, Ranchi.

The Judicial Magistrate rejected the application on 21.08.2023, relying, inter alia, on the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the decision in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar.

The petitioner’s criminal revision was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Dhanbad, on 24.09.2025. The petitioner thereafter invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Whether the courts below erred in refusing to send the agreement dated 01.06.2021, marked Exhibit C-2/CW-1, for examination by a handwriting expert despite the petitioner’s subsequent denial of the signature?

Whether the orders of the Judicial Magistrate and the Revisional Court warranted interference under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023?

The Court considered Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction, and Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, concerning expert opinion on handwriting.

It relied on Kalyani Baskar v. M.S. Sampoornam, which recognises the accused’s right under Section 243(2) Cr.P.C. to have a document examined where necessary for a fair defence, and T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidhar, which affirms the accused’s right to a fair trial and to adduce defence evidence.

However, the Court also applied the rule that a witness’s testimony on a material fact ordinarily remains unchallenged and may be relied upon where no contrary suggestion is put in cross-examination, as stated in Laxmibai v. Bhagwantbuva and State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh.

It further relied on State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram, recognising that although a court may compare disputed and admitted signatures, prudence generally warrants expert assistance where handwriting identity is material.

At the same time, the Court noted that handwriting-expert evidence is generally weak and must be approached with caution, as held in Smt. Bhagwan Kaur v. Maharaj Krishan Sharma, Murari Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Fakhruddin v. State of Madhya Pradesh, and Jagmal Singh Yadav v. Aimaduddin Ahmed Khan.

The Court also referred to Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the presumption that a cheque was issued in discharge of a debt or liability.

The Court held that the petitioner’s request for expert examination was made belatedly, only after the matter had reached the stage of defence evidence.

The complainant had expressly identified the petitioner as the signatory of Exhibit C-2/CW-1, yet the petitioner neither cross-examined him on that assertion nor suggested that the signature was forged.

The petitioner also failed to raise the alleged forgery in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

Applying the principles in Laxmibai and Nahar Singh, the Court treated the complainant’s unchallenged testimony as material evidence that could be relied upon.

Although the petitioner invoked the right to seek expert assistance recognised in Kalyani Baskar and T. Nagappa, the Court found that the request was not necessary in view of the existing evidence and the absence of any timely challenge to the signature.

The Court further observed that handwriting-expert evidence is inherently fallible and comparatively weak, whereas the complainant’s direct and unchallenged testimony constituted substantial evidence.

Consequently, the refusal to obtain expert opinion did not amount to illegality, perversity, or failure of fair trial warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

It held that, in the circumstances, the courts below were justified in refusing to send Exhibit C-2/CW-1 for handwriting examination, particularly because the petitioner had not challenged the complainant’s assertion regarding the signature during cross-examination or in his Section 313 statement.

Finding no illegality in the Magistrate’s order dated 21.08.2023 or the Revisional Court’s order dated 24.09.2025, the Court dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 528 BNSS.

The connected interlocutory applications were disposed of as infructuous.