Back
BIRENDRA KUMAR
Raees Khan – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER
1. Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is an accused facing trial for offence under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act. The cheque said to be issued by the petitioner could not be honored for the reason that signature did not tally.
3. Petitioner raised objection before the learned trial Judge that the cheque is not signed by the petitioner, therefore, it should be sent to forensic experts for verification of signature. The learned Court below accepted the plea of the petitioner and asked the petitioner to get the signature verified forensically by any private expert because the State Forensic Science Laboratory was already overburdened with the forensic examination relating to rape and murder cases. The learned Court below relied upon a judgment of this Court in Neetu Pareek Vs. Ravishankar & Ors., wherein, this Court observed that it is common knowledge that the State Forensic Laboratory is heavily overburdened with reports to be submitted in rape and murder cases at the earliest due to lack of infrastructure.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the experts engaged in forensic examination of evidences of rape and murder are not the same as those engag
The court emphasized the importance of independent expert testimony for establishing signature authenticity in forgery claims.
The court established that a defendant in a cheque dishonor case can seek expert evidence to rebut the presumption of issuance in discharge of a debt, particularly when claiming forgery.
A party's right to a fair trial includes the ability to challenge evidence through proper legal procedures, particularly concerning disputed signatures in cheque dishonour cases.
Accused must prove that a signed cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt, as merely admitting the signature imposes the burden of proof under Section 139 of the NI Act.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the accused's right to a fair trial, entitlement to lead evidence to prove innocence, and the provisions of Section 243 of the Code of Criminal ....
Dishonour of cheque – Examination of disputed cheque by Forensic Science Laboratory is not necessary where accused has admitted his signature in cheque.
The court emphasized the necessity of sending a disputed cheque for forensic examination to ascertain signature authenticity, ruling that the trial court's order was not merely interlocutory and thus....
The court ruled that a trial court's order denying signature verification on a disputed cheque is not merely interlocutory and can be challenged in a revision petition, emphasizing the right to a fai....
Expert opinions are not conclusive evidence; repeated requests for forensic examination after an unfavorable report are impermissible in trial proceedings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
