S.138 NI Act | Another Forensic Expert Can't Be Appointed Till First Expert's Report On Signature Has Been Set Aside: HP High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that when a forensic expert's opinion has been brought on record and not been set aside, an accused can't insist on the appointment of another expert just because the existing report is unfavourable.Justice Rakesh Kainthla said: “Since the report of the Forensic Expert examined by the petitioner is still on record and has not been set aside,...
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that when a forensic expert's opinion has been brought on record and not been set aside, an accused can't insist on the appointment of another expert just because the existing report is unfavourable.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla said: “Since the report of the Forensic Expert examined by the petitioner is still on record and has not been set aside, therefore, the learned Trial Court had rightly held that there was no necessity to send the signatures for comparison to another Forensic Expert.”
Background Facts:
The complainant, Shobha Ram, filed a complaint against the accused, Mantesh Kumar, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging that a cheque issued by the accused had been dishonoured.
The accused produced a report of the forensic expert who opined that the signatures on the cheque were not those of the accused. Further to prove his case that the signatures on the cheque were forged, the accused examined the Customer Relationship Officer of Federal Bank, Ludhiana, who presented the original record containing the signatures of the accused.
Despite this, the Trial Court gave its opinion that the complaint would be allowed. The accused then filed an application under Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, asking the court to refer the disputed signatures to a government forensic expert for fresh comparison.
The accused contended that his right to a fair trial was violated as his signatures were forged, and it was necessary to compare the signatures to interpret the truth.
Aggrieved, he filed a petition before the High Court, seeking a direction for the signatures to be sent for expert comparison.
Findings:
The High Court observed that the accused had already produced a forensic expert's report during the trial and that the report remained valid and was never set aside, so a second Expert cannot be appointed.
In Santhosh K.S. v/s State of Kerala, 2024 it was held that “the accused cannot insist that the disputed signatures be sent to another laboratory after getting adverse report”.
Thus, the High Court noted that the petition shows that the application for seeking another expert opinion was filed because the accused believed that the Trial Court was biased.
The High Court stated that this is an extraneous consideration and shows that the application was not bona fide but meant to prolong the trial, and could not have been allowed.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed and made it clear that observations made will be confined to the disposal of the petition and will not have any bearing on the merits of the main case filed by the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Case Name: Mantesh Kumar v/s Shobha Ram
Case No.: Cr. MMO No. 584 of 2025
Date of Decision: 14.07.2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate.