Forensic examination is one of the most important procedural instruments for establishing objective truth during judicial investigation. Although the Criminal Procedure Code regulates the appointment and conduct of forensic examinations, the legal framework governing the hearing of expert opinions and the examination of experts in court remains insufficiently defined. This study analyzes the existing procedural regulation of expert participation during judicial proceedings, identifies practical challenges arising from inconsistent judicial approaches, and evaluates comparative legal experience from Russia, Kazakhstan, Germany, and France. The research employs comparative legal, systematic, logical-legal, and analytical methods to assess the procedural significance of expert testimony during trial. The findings demonstrate that the absence of a clearly regulated mechanism for hearing expert opinions may undermine the principles of adversarial proceedings, equality of parties, and comprehensive evaluation of evidence. Based on the comparative analysis and identified legislative gaps, the study proposes introducing separate procedural provisions into the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan regulating the hearing of expert opinions during judicial investigation and the examination of experts in court. The proposed amendments are expected to strengthen procedural guarantees, ensure uniform judicial practice, improve the reliability of expert evidence, and enhance the fairness, legality, and transparency of criminal proceedings.