Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Birendra Kumar, J.
Raees Khan - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8017 of 2022
Decided On : 19-04-2023
FORGERY - NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS - The court addressed the issue of signature verification in a Section 138 case under The Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizing the need for reliable forensic examination. The court quashed the lower court's order allowing a private expert without naming one, highlighting the importance of due process and the potential for miscarriage of justice if proper verification is not ensured.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, accused under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, contested the validity of a cheque due to a signature mismatch. The lower court allowed forensic verification by a private expert due to the State Forensic Science Laboratory's overload.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while the lower court's intention was to expedite the process, it failed to ensure the credibility of the private expert and did not adequately address the petitioner's rights.
Issues: Whether the lower court's decision to allow a private expert for signature verification without naming one was appropriate, and whether the State Forensic Science Laboratory should have been considered.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the integrity of the forensic examination process is crucial, and that any expert engaged must be reputable. The court also highlighted the necessity of providing the petitioner with a fair opportunity to present evidence.
Result: The court quashed the lower court's order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, ensuring that the petitioner is given a reasonable opportunity to lead evidence regarding the expert's opinion.
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 engaged in the examination of handwriting, therefore, the reasoning cannot be applicable. Moreover sanctity of private expert without naming expert in the impugned order would itself be a question of doubt and challenge, therefore the Court below should decide the name of the private expert or revisit the matter to be sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory for forensic verification of signature on the cheque.
5. Learned counsel submits that the Court is going to pass final judgment on 29.04.2023 itself.
6. Respondent No.2 has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and asserted that the Court below has taken care of the rights of the petitioner, hence impugned order is not required to be interfered with.
7. Considering the fact that even private expert must be a person of repute having good experience in the field, therefore, the Court is expected to assign the matter to the named private expert or it may assign it to the State Forensic Science Laboratory.
8. Hence to prevent miscarriage of justice, the impugned order is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Court below to decide the matter afresh. The Court shall not pass any judgment without deciding on the prayer of the petitioner and giving reasonable opportunity of leading evidence on the opinion of the expert.
9. The instant petition is accordingly allowed.
AI
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
