Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case

"The request of the petitioner to send the impugned cheque repeatedly to the Forensic Science Laboratory till she gets a favourable report, is totally unacceptable." Kerala High Court, in a significant ruling dated July 24, 2026, held that an accused in a cheque bounce case cannot repeatedly seek to send the dishonoured cheque to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) merely because the initial expert report was unfavourable.

A bench of Justice G. Girish observed that the practice of repeatedly seeking forensic analysis until a favourable outcome is achieved is impermissible in law, affirming that an expert's opinion is not substantive evidence but a piece of corroboration for the trial court to weigh.

The matter stemmed from a criminal prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act involving the dishonour of a cheque for Rs. 32,50,000. During the trial, the accused challenged the authenticity of the signature on the cheque, prompting the trial court to send it to the State Forensic Science Laboratory. When the expert report confirmed the signature, the accused filed an application before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvalla, seeking to set aside the report and send the cheque for a second analysis, which the Magistrate dismissed.

The primary question before the court was whether an accused can demand a second forensic analysis of a cheque merely because the initial report did not examine the handwriting alongside the signature. The court was also called upon to determine the scope of High Court interference under Article 227 of the Constitution against interlocutory orders refusing to re-send evidence for expert analysis.

Court Deprecates Repeated Requests For FSL Reports

Justice Girish strongly disapproved of the petitioner's attempt to obtain multiple expert opinions to suit her defence. The court noted that there was absolutely nothing on record to doubt the credibility of the Scientific Officer or the forensic report itself. The bench observed that the trial court had rightly evaluated the expert's testimony, who had satisfactorily explained the methodology and the reasons for her findings when examined as PW8.

Competence Of The FSL Expert Upheld

The High Court decisively rejected the petitioner's challenge regarding the expertise and experience of the Scientific Officer. Referencing the precedent laid down by the Kerala High Court in Chandrasekharan Nair N. v. M/s. Olympic Credit Corporation [2014 (1) KHC 710], the court found that the forensic report fulfilled the legal requirement of having both a data part and an opinion part. The court highlighted the officer's postgraduate degree in Chemistry and UGC NET qualifications to uphold her competence.

Expert Opinion Is Not Substantive Evidence

Addressing the evidentiary weight of the forensic report, the High Court emphasized that the trial court had applied the correct legal framework. The court reiterated that an expert's opinion does not constitute substantive evidence on its own, and the guilt of the accused cannot be concluded solely based on it. The bench clarified that it is ultimately the duty of the trial magistrate to evaluate the report during the final adjudication.

"Above all, the court below has asserted the correct proposition of law that the opinion of the expert is not substantive evidence, and that ultimately it is for the Court to analyse the same in the backdrop of all the facts and circumstances of the case..."

Supervisory Jurisdiction Under Article 227 Is Limited

Refusing to interfere with the Magistrate's order, the High Court extensively referenced Supreme Court precedents on the narrow scope of Article 227. Relying on the Apex Court's decision in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath [(2009) 5 SCC 616], the bench noted that the power of superintendence is meant to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases involving a manifest miscarriage of justice.

No Appellate Interference In Disguise

Further solidifying its stance, the court cited the Constitution Bench ruling in Rajendra Diwan v. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala [(2019) 20 SCC 143]. The bench observed that the High Court's extraordinary writ jurisdiction restricts interference to cases of patent error of law, perversity, or lack of jurisdiction. The court categorically stated that jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be exercised "in the cloak of an appeal in disguise" merely to re-analyse evidence or correct a perceived mistake of fact.

Finding absolutely no grounds to interfere with the reasoned order of the trial court, the High Court dismissed the original petition. The court concluded that the Magistrate had committed no jurisdictional error or patent illegality in refusing to forward the dishonoured cheque for a second forensic examination.

Date of Decision: 24 July 2026