Recently, the Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a plea seeking a second forensic analysis of disputed signatures in a cheque bounce case, observing that repeated expert referrals, merely due to dissatisfaction with an earlier report, amount to abuse of the judicial process. The Court underlined that expert opinions are not conclusive and held that the ultimate responsibility to determine the truth lies with the court, not the laboratory.
Brief Facts:
In a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant alleged that the accused had issued a dishonoured cheque. During trial, the accused examined a private forensic expert who claimed that the signatures on the cheque were not those of the accused. However, the expert admitted in cross-examination that the comparison was based only on photocopies, not originals.
Subsequently, a bank official was examined who produced original signature records. As the Trial Court neared conclusion, the accused moved an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, praying for a government forensic examination of his signatures. Alleging forgery, the accused claimed his right to a fair trial was at stake. The Trial Court rejected this application, prompting the present challenge before the High Court.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the rejection of the application under Section 45 was arbitrary and curtailed the accused’s right to lead fair and complete defence. Stressing the unreliability of the earlier report, based on photocopies, the counsel asserted that comparison with original documents by a government expert was essential to uncover the truth. Heavy reliance was placed on Saroj Kumari v. Harminder, where similar expert examination was permitted.
Observations of the Court:
The Court rejected the plea, holding that merely being unhappy with an existing expert report does not entitle an accused to a fresh one. It observed that the petitioner’s forensic report was already part of the record and had not been set aside, rendering the application for a second opinion legally untenable.
The Court cited the ruling in R. Bhaskar Reddy v. Chinni @ Chengal Reddy and echoed the principle laid down in Santhosh K.S. v. State of Kerala, stating, “Once a report has been obtained through court process, it is not open to the accused, particularly in a private complaint under the NI Act, to keep fishing for favourable opinions from multiple experts.”
Noting that expert opinions are only advisory, the Court emphasized, “The opinion of a handwriting expert is not substantive evidence. It is the court that ultimately weighs the truth on the strength of the entire record. Courts are not bound by expert views, they are guided by them.” The Court also dismissed objections regarding questions posed by the Trial Court to a witness. Relying on State of M.P. v. Balveer Singh, the Bench underscored the proactive role of the judge, “A judge is not a mute spectator or recording machine. The court must take active interest and elicit truth to ensure justice is done.”
Finally, the Court noted that the petitioner’s application appeared to stem from an alleged perception of bias by the Trial Court, an extraneous ground intended to delay proceedings. It termed the move as lacking in bona fides.
The decision of the Court:
Finding no illegality in the Trial Court's refusal to allow a second forensic test, the High Court dismissed the petition. It clarified that none of its observations would influence the pending trial and reiterated that the matter should proceed strictly on its merits.
Case title: Mantesh Kumar vs. Shobha Ram
Coram: Justice Rakesh Kainthla
Case No.: Cr. MMO No.584 of 2025
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Sanjay Kumar Sharma
Advocate for Respondent: Nemo
Picture Source :