Typewritten Cheque Though Uncommon Is Not Illegal, Its Use Alone Can't Defeat NI Act Claim: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held the mere fact that a cheque is typewritten is not a legally sustainable ground to doubt its genuineness or refuse to invoke the statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 384]Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the judgment in a criminal appeal challenging the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mavelikkara.The complainant, who filed the present appeal alleged that the accused had committed an offence under Section 138 of NI Act on the premise that a cheque for Rs.4,75,000/- issued by the accused in discharge of the said liability was dishonoured when submitted for encashment. The trial court had acquitted the accused after finding it unlikely that the complainant would lend an additional Rs.3,00,000/- when an earlier loan of Rs.1,75,000 had not yet been repaid. Aggrieved by the same, the appeal was filed. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the parties are relatives and therefore, after the complainant had advanced Rs.1,75,000/- to the accused on 14.06.2012, the accused again requested a further sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, which the complainant paid on 12.11.2012. It was further submitted that the evidence adduced by the complainant through witnesses and Exts.P1 to P6 was sufficient to discharge the complainant's initial burden. The counsel for the accused contended that the finding of the magistrate that the complainant's case was improbable was justified, particularly because the Ext.P1 cheque submitted by the complainant was a typewritten cheque. The Court held that although typewritten cheques are uncommon, there is no legal prohibition against them.The Court ruled that once the complainant establishes the underlying transaction and execution of the cheque, its typewritten nature alone cannot justify disbelief of the prosecution case or denial of the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.“Although it is contended by the learned counsel for the accused that issuance of a typewritten cheque when both parties were capable of writing the cheque would create a doubt as regards to the transaction and execution of the cheque, issuance of a typewritten cheque though not common, is not prohibited by law. Thus, in the case of a cheque issued as typewritten, when the complainant succeeds in establishing the transaction and execution of the cheque, merely because the cheque was a typewritten one, shall not be a reason to disbelieve the case of the complainant.” the Court held. The Court further observed that where the parties are close relatives, advancing another loan despite an outstanding liability is not, by itself, an improbable circumstance. The Court noted that the two transactions were separated by only about five months and that the cheque was issued towards discharge of the combined liability of ₹4,75,000 lakh.“Having appraised the evidence on the issue, there is no reason to disbelieve the case put forward by the complainant. Therefore, the learned Magistrate went wrong in holding that the complainant had failed to prove her case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, it is held that the complainant succeeded in proving the transaction led to execution of Ext.P1 cheque, so that she could very well avail the twin presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act, particularly, where the accused admitted liability to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) arising out of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Only) he had borrowed in the year 2010.” the Court held.The Court thus allowed the appeal by setting aside the acquittal of the accused. The Court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, sentenced her to imprisonment till the rising of the court, and imposed a fine of Rs.4,75,000, payable as compensation to the complainant, with six months' default imprisonment.Case Title: Shiny S Nair v State of Kerala and Ors.Case No: Crl.A 705/ 2015Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 384Counsel for Appellant: Santhosh Mathew (Sr.), Arun Thomas, Jennis StephenCounsel for Respondents: M.A. Shihab (PP), Asha Elizabeth MathewClick Here To Read/ Download Judgment

Typewritten Cheque Though Uncommon Is Not Illegal, Its Use Alone Can't Defeat NI Act Claim: Kerala High Court

Anamika MJ

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Anamika MJ

Typewritten Cheque Though Uncommon Is Not Illegal, Its Use Alone Can't Defeat NI Act Claim: Kerala High Court

Anamika MJ

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Anamika MJ

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers