**A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was filed against Mrs. Kalyani Baskar and her husband alleging that they jointly issued a cheque which was dishonoured for insufficient funds. The accused appeared and filed an application under Section 243(2) CrPC seeking to send the cheque for examination by a handwriting expert to prove that the signature was not hers. The Magistrate rejected the prayer. The High Court upheld the rejection. In appeal, the Supreme Court held that the cheque itself being the foundation of the complaint constituted good material for rebuttal, and denial of opportunity to examine it by handwriting expert deprived the accused of her valuable right to adduce defence evidence, resulting in unfair trial and violation of Article 21. The Magistrate should have allowed the request unless it was intended solely for vexation or delay. The impugned orders were set aside and the Magistrate was directed to send the cheque for expert opinion.**
- The power of the Magistrate under Section 243(2) CrPC to send documents for expert opinion in a cheque dishonour case must be exercised unless the request is vexatious or intended only to delay proceedings; denial deprives the accused of rebuttal opportunity and fair trial: Kalyani Baskar v. M.S. Sampoornaam, (2007) 2 SCC 258, Paras relevant to Section 243(2) and fair trial.
- Adducing defence evidence including expert examination is a valuable right under Article 21; its denial amounts to unfair trial: Kalyani Baskar v. M.S. Sampoornaam, (2007) 2 SCC 258.
- Rules of procedure are designed to secure justice and must be scrupulously followed to prevent breach of fair trial principles: Kalyani Baskar v. M.S. Sampoornaam, (2007) 2 SCC 258.
Kalyani Baskar (Mrs.) Vs M.S. Sampoornaam (Mrs.), Order date: 11 December 2006, Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1293 of 2006, Neutral Citation: (2007) 2 Supreme Court Cases 258, Name of court: Supreme Court of India, Name of Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta.
[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]
[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]
