right. Denial of that right means denial of fair trial. It is essential that rules of procedure designed to ensure justice should be scrupulously followed and courts should be jealous in seeing that there is no breach of them. We have not been able to appreciate the view of the learned Judge of the High Court that the petitioner has filed application under Section 243 Cr.P.C., without naming any person as witness or anything to be summoned, which are to be sent for handwriting expert for examination. As noticed above, Section 243(2) Cr.P.C. refers to a stage when the prosecution closes its evidence after examining the witnesses and the accused has entered upon his defence. The appellant in this case requests for sending the cheque, in question, for the opinion of the hand –writing expert after the respondent has closed her evidence, the Magistrate should have granted such a request unless he thinks that the objects of the appellant is vexation or delaying the criminal proceedings. In the circumstances, the order of the High Court impugned in this appeal upholding the order of the Magistrate is erroneous and not sustainable. For all the foregoing reasons, we allow this appeal and set aside the order of the High Court dated 10.02.2004 passed in Criminal Revision Case No. 335 of 2002 by which the order dated 15.11.2001 of the Judicial Magistrate made in Crl. M.P. No. 341 of 2001 in C.C. No. 439 of 1998 dismissing the application of the appellant under Section 243 Cr. P.C. was affirmed. Accordingly, Crl. M.P. No. 341 of 2001 in C.C. No. 439 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, Chennai, shall stand allowed. The learned Magistrate shall take appropriate steps for obtaining the report of handwriting expert of handwriting expert on the point whether the signature in the cheque is that of the accused and shall proceed with the trial of the case in accordance with law.”
