Judge tamilselvi Madras High Court Sets Aside Magistrate’s Refusal To Send Disputed Cheque For Expert Opinion
[09/11, 08:16] Sekarreporter: https://lawyerenews.com/legal_detail/valuable-right-to-defend-cannot-be-defeated-when-supporting-materials-are-produced-madras-high-court-sets-aside-magistrates-refusal-to-send-disputed-cheque-for-expert-opinion
[09/11, 08:16] Sekarreporter: Home News HIGH COURTS
Valuable Right To Defend Cannot Be Defeated When Supporting Materials Are Produced: Madras High Court Sets Aside Magistrate’s Refusal To Send Disputed Cheque For Expert Opinion
08 November 2025 4:57 PM
By: sayum
Share:
Madras High Court, in the case of Kuppuraj v. Manikandan, delivered a significant ruling under its Criminal Revision Jurisdiction, setting aside a Magistrate’s order that had rejected a plea to send a disputed cheque for expert signature analysis. The case was decided by Justice T.V. Thamilselvi, who held that the trial court’s dismissal solely on the ground of delay prejudiced the petitioner’s right to a fair defence. The High Court directed that the disputed cheque and contemporaneous genuine signatures be forwarded for expert examination within two weeks.
“Though the Court Can Compare Signatures, Failure to Allow Expert Opinion Prejudices Defence” – High Court Criticises Magistrate’s Refusal
In a case highlighting procedural fairness in cheque dishonour proceedings, the Madras High Court allowed criminal revision petitions challenging the Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram’s order dated 21.02.2024, which had dismissed applications seeking expert opinion on the authenticity of a cheque signature.
The key legal issue involved the right of the accused to seek forensic verification of a disputed signature on a cheque and whether such a request could be dismissed as a delay tactic. The High Court found the dismissal erroneous and ruled in favour of the petitioner, emphasising the accused’s fundamental right to defend himself with all available legal tools, especially when contemporaneous signatures were provided.
The petitioner, Kuppuraj, a municipal worker employed as a cleaner in Dharapuram Municipality, was facing trial in STC No. 290 of 2020 involving a disputed cheque. He claimed that the signature on the cheque was forged, and to establish this, he filed applications before the trial court under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, seeking comparison of the cheque with his genuine signatures found in the attendance registers from 2019 to 2021.
However, the Judicial Magistrate dismissed the applications, branding them as attempts to “prolong the proceedings,” noting that the challenge to the signature was raised belatedly during cross-examination. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court by filing criminal revision petitions.
The primary legal issue was whether the trial court was justified in dismissing the application for expert opinion as a delay tactic, despite the accused submitting contemporaneous genuine signatures for comparison.
The High Court considered the scope of Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, which permits courts to compare disputed signatures. However, the judgment reiterated that this judicial power does not override the right of the accused to seek expert opinion, especially when material evidence is placed before the court.
Justice Thamilselvi observed:
“Admittedly, though the Court is empowered to compare the disputed signatures under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, the learned trial Judge failed to exercise such power.”
More importantly, the Court ruled that the failure to provide an opportunity for expert opinion, despite credible supporting materials, violated the petitioner’s right to a proper defence. The Court rejected the reasoning of the Magistrate that the application was a tactic to delay proceedings:
“If an opportunity is not afforded to him, his valuable right to defend the case will be defeated.”
The Court underlined that once the petitioner had furnished contemporaneous official documents bearing his admitted signatures, it was not open for the trial court to summarily deny forensic examination solely on the basis of procedural delay or timing of the defence.
Justice Thamilselvi set aside the impugned orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate in Crl.M.P. Nos. 61 and 62 of 2024, holding the
