Mahesh Tiwari v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2026

The case arose from proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act relating to a dishonoured cheque.

The accused (petitioner) consistently maintained that the signatures on the cheque were not his.

He asserted that he had never issued any cheque to the complainant and denied any legal liability.

During the trial stage, the accused filed an application seeking forensic examination (FSL) of the disputed signatures.

The application was filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, requesting expert opinion.

The trial court rejected the application on technical grounds, stating:

• The accused could examine a bank official instead.

• The application was filed at the fag end of the trial.

The accused challenged this rejection before the High Court.

The Court observed that the accused had consistently disputed the signatures from the beginning, showing a bona fide defence.

It held that the trial court erred in rejecting the application merely on technical grounds.

The Court emphasized that Section 139 NI Act creates a presumption in favour of the cheque holder, thereby shifting the burden of proof onto the accused.

It clarified that this presumption is rebuttable, not absolute.

The Court noted that since the accused must disprove liability, the right to fair trial becomes stronger than in ordinary criminal cases.

It recognized the right to defend oneself as a fundamental right under Article 21.

The Court held that determining the authenticity of signatures requires scientific examination by a handwriting expert.

It rejected the reasoning that examining a bank official would be sufficient in such circumstances.

The Court concluded that denying the opportunity for forensic examination would prejudice the defence.

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the trial court’s order.

It directed that the cheque be sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for examination.

The judgment highlights the unique nature of offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act, where statutory presumptions reverse the burden of proof.

It reinforces that procedural fairness becomes more critical when the accused bears the burden to disprove guilt.

The Court strengthens the principle that fair trial under Article 21 includes the right to present effective defence evidence.

It underscores the importance of scientific and expert evidence in resolving factual disputes like signature authenticity.

The ruling prevents courts from rejecting crucial defence applications based on mere technicalities.

It balances the presumption in favour of the complainant with the rights of the accused, ensuring justice is not one-sided.

This decision serves as an important precedent ensuring that rebuttable presumptions do not become tools of unfair conviction.