Reverse Burden U/S 139 NI Act Strengthens Fair Trial Rights: Rajasthan High Court Orders FSL Exam Of Disputed Cheque Signatures
The Rajasthan High Court has held that since Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act creates a presumption in favour of the cheque holder and places the burden on the accused to rebut that presumption, the right to a fair trial assumes greater significance. The Court observed that where the accused is required to disprove liability, fair and adequate opportunities to defend oneself must...
The Rajasthan High Court has held that since Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act creates a presumption in favour of the cheque holder and places the burden on the accused to rebut that presumption, the right to a fair trial assumes greater significance. The Court observed that where the accused is required to disprove liability, fair and adequate opportunities to defend oneself must be protected more strongly.
“Since the presumption is in favour of the holder, it is for the accused to disprove his guilt. In such a scenario, naturally the right to fair trial becomes stronger. Thus, this right deserves to be protected more strongly and emphatically than in ordinary criminal offences under the Penal Code, 1860.”
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a petition challenging a magistrate's order rejecting the accused's application seeking FSL examination of the signatures on the cheque in question.
The petitioner argued that, from the very beginning of the trial, his consistent defence had been that the signatures on the cheque were not his, as he had never issued any cheque to the complainant. At the stage of evidence, he moved an application seeking forensic examination of the disputed signatures.
The trial court rejected the application on technical grounds, observing that the petitioner could examine a bank officer to prove his defence and that the application had been filed at the fag end of the trial. This order was challenged before the High Court.
After hearing the parties, the Court noted that the accused had disputed the signatures on the cheque from day one and had maintained the same defence throughout the trial. Despite this, the application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was rejected on technical grounds.
The Court observed that the right to defend oneself is a human right as well as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, which includes the right to a fair trial.
“…while Section 139 of the Act of 1881 creates a presumption in favour of the holder of cheque, it also permits the accused-offender the right to prove 'to the contrary'. Hence, it is not an absolute presumption, but a rebuttable one.”
The Court further opined that since Section 139 reverses the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial naturally becomes stronger as compared to ordinary criminal offences under the IPC.
It held that whether the signatures in question were genuine or not could be determined only after obtaining the opinion of a handwriting expert. Therefore, it was necessary to send the cheque in question to the FSL for scientific examination.
Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the trial court was directed to send the cheque to the FSL for analysis
Title: Mahesh Tiwari v The State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 154