Judgment Intelligence
Petition AllowedMahesh Tiwari v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1175/2015
- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 13 April 2026
- Bench
- Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Sections 138, 139; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 45; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Sections 243(2), 313; Constitution of India — Article 21
Final Outcome
Petition allowed. The order of 02.03.2015 was quashed. The trial court will take the petitioner's specimen signatures in court, send them with the cheque to the FSL for an early report, and then conclude the trial expeditiously (paras 17-19).
Key holdings
- Section 139 of the NI Act raises a rebuttable presumption; the accused may prove the contrary (para 13).
- Because the burden shifts to the accused, the right to a fair trial deserves stronger protection in Section 138 cases (para 14).
- A Magistrate should send a disputed cheque to a handwriting expert at the defence stage unless the request is vexatious or meant to delay (paras 15, 17).
- A signature disputed consistently since the legal notice cannot be decided without an expert’s opinion (paras 11, 16).
- The trial court must obtain the FSL report quickly and avoid unnecessary adjournments in a case pending since 2012 (paras 17-18).
Brief Facts
A cheque dated 31.03.2011 was dishonoured for insufficient funds and the complainant sent a legal notice. The petitioner replied that he never issued the cheque and disputed the signature (para 6). He was tried under Section 138 of the NI Act before the Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur City (para 6). At the stage of defence evidence he applied under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to have the signature examined by a handwriting expert at the FSL (para 7). On 02.03.2015 the Magistrate refused, saying he could examine the bank officer and had applied at the fag end of the trial (paras 1, 7). The complainant called the application a delaying tactic (para 4).
Court's Findings
Fair trial is a fundamental right under Article 21, and the right to lead defence evidence is recognised by Section 243(2) CrPC (paras 9-10). The petitioner had disputed the signature from the day he received the legal notice and throughout the trial (para 11). Section 139 of the NI Act presumes that the holder received the cheque for a debt or liability, but the presumption is rebuttable (paras 12-13). Because it reverses the ordinary presumption of innocence and puts the burden on the accused, the right to a fair trial must be protected "more strongly and emphatically than in ordinary criminal offences" (para 14). In Kalyani Baskar the Supreme Court held that a Magistrate should send a disputed cheque to a handwriting expert at the defence stage unless the object is vexation or delay, and that refusing it denies a fair trial (para 15). Whether the signature was genuine could not be decided without an expert's opinion (para 16). As the case dated from 2012, the Court directed the trial court to obtain the report quickly and to avoid unnecessary adjournments (paras 17-18).
Legal Principle
Where an accused in a cheque-bounce case has consistently denied his signature, the court should allow the cheque to be sent to a handwriting expert at the defence stage unless the request is vexatious or meant to delay. The Section 139 presumption makes his right to rebut essential to a fair trial (paras 14-17).
Precedents Relied Upon
- Kalyani Baskar (Mrs.) v. M.S. Sampoornam (Mrs.) (2007) 2 SCC 258
A Magistrate does not exceed his powers under Section 243(2) CrPC by sending a disputed cheque to a handwriting expert, and should grant such a request at the defence stage unless the object is vexation or delay; refusing it denies the accused a fair trial.
