Latest JudgementConstitution of India

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

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

Rajasthan High Court·21 April 2026

Constitution of India

Court

Rajasthan High Court

Date of Decision

21 April 2026

Judges

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of the Case

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.

Whether the accused is entitled to seek FSL examination of disputed signatures to establish his defence?
Whether rejection of such an application on technical grounds violates the right to fair trial?
Whether the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act increases the burden on the accused?
Whether the accused must be given adequate opportunity to rebut the statutory presumption?

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.