Kerala High Court says Trial Courts can reject Forensic Examination Requests of Cheques under NI Act
The Kerala High Court has ruled that trial courts have the authority to reject applications requesting forensic examination of cheques in cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) if such requests are made to delay proceedings. The Court emphasized that courts should not “meekly and blindly” accept such applications without evaluating their intent. First Let’s understand what is Forensic Examination of Cheques.
A forensic examination of cheques involves a detailed analysis of the physical and electronic characteristics of a cheque to determine its authenticity and verify specific details. This process is often carried out by forensic experts, including handwriting specialists and forensic document examiners. Some of the key aspects examined during a forensic analysis of cheques include:
- Signature Verification: Handwriting experts analyze whether the signature on the cheque matches the authorized signer’s signature. They compare writing styles, stroke pressure, angles, and other characteristics.
- Alteration Detection: Forensic experts look for signs of tampering, such as erased or overwritten numbers, altered dates, or amounts.
- Ink and Paper Analysis: The ink used to write on the cheque and the type of paper are analyzed to determine if the cheque has been modified or if it is consistent with other cheques issued by the same account holder.
- Stamp and Seal Examination: Any stamps, seals, or bank endorsements on the cheque are examined for authenticity.
- Forgery Detection: The examiner checks for any signs of forgery, such as false signatures or copied details.
- Cheque Numbering and Watermarks: The serial number, watermark, and other security features of the cheque are checked to verify that it is an original document issued by the bank.
This type of forensic analysis helps resolve disputes in cases involving cheque fraud, forgery, or when questions arise about the validity of a cheque under legal proceedings, such as in cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Upholding the Magistrate’s Decision
The Court upheld the Magistrate’s decision to refuse a summons for a private handwriting expert under Section 348 of the BNSS. It pointed out that attempts to delay trials, especially in Section 138 NI Act cases, are common. The Court observed, “One of the easiest ways to delay proceedings is to request the cheque be sent for expert opinion.”
Court’s View on Delays and Forensic Requests
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas stated, “Though genuine applications should not be dismissed due to delays, if the court finds that an application is vexatious or aimed at prolonging proceedings, the trial court is entitled to reject such requests rather than accept them unquestioningly.” He added that the trial court must assess the specific circumstances of each case before reaching a decision.
Legal Representation
Advocate Varghese C. Kuriakose represented the petitioner, while Public Prosecutor Sreeja V. appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Petitioner’s Challenge
The petitioner challenged the Magistrate’s refusal to send the cheque for forensic examination. The High Court noted that in 2021, the petitioner had already requested a forensic examination of the cheque, and a report from the Forensic Science Laboratory confirmed the signatures were those of the accused. The Court concluded that the petitioner’s renewed request for another examination was an attempt to delay the trial.
Opinion of Handwriting Experts Under Indian Evidence Act
Referring to Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Court clarified that the opinion of a handwriting expert is “only an opinion” and does not constitute conclusive evidence.
No Repeated Requests for Forensic Examination
The Court remarked, “After receiving an adverse report from the State Forensic Science Laboratory, the accused cannot continuously demand that the disputed signature be sent to another laboratory. The opinion of a handwriting expert is not substantive evidence, and the final decision lies with the court.”
Delays in the Case
The Court highlighted that more than 10 years had passed since the case was initiated, and further delays would harm the complainant’s interests and defeat the purpose of the statute. The Court held that once an expert report is obtained through the court process, a party cannot keep seeking additional reports without first challenging the original one.
