S.138 NI Act | If Accused Is Disputing Signature On Cheque, Certified Copy Of Specimen Signature Can Be Procured From Bank: Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

30 Jan 2024 5:04 AM GMT

  • S.138 NI Act | If Accused Is Disputing Signature On Cheque, Certified Copy Of Specimen Signature Can Be Procured From Bank: Supreme Court

    In a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, if the accused is disputing the signature on the cheque, then the certified copies of the signatures from the bank could be summoned from the bank to compare the same with the signature appearing on the cheque.The Court explained that the indorsements on a cheque carry a presumption of genuineness as per Section 118(e) of...

    In a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, if the accused is disputing the signature on the cheque, then the certified copies of the signatures from the bank could be summoned from the bank to compare the same with the signature appearing on the cheque.

    The Court explained that the indorsements on a cheque carry a presumption of genuineness as per Section 118(e) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, it is incumbent upon the accused to lead evidence to rebut the presumption of genuineness of signatures.

    "Certified copy of a document issued by a Bank is itself admissible under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 without any formal proof thereof. Hence, in an appropriate case, the certified copy of the specimen signature maintained by the Bank can be procured with a request to the Court to compare the same with the signature appearing on the cheque by exercising powers under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872," the Court observed.

    A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta was dealing with an appeal challenging the refusal of the Appellate Court to accept additional evidence under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 in the appeal filed by the accused against his conviction in a cheque dishonour case. The appellant wanted to produce the evidence of a handwriting expert regarding the signature at the appellate stage.

    Noting that the power under Section 391 can only be exercised only if the appellant was prevented from presenting such evidence in trial despite due diligence, the Court noted that the accused had not taken any efforts to disprove his signature at the trial stage. No question was put to the witness from the bank regarding the genuineness of the signature. Also, the cheque was returned not on the grounds of any discrepancy in the signatures.

    "...we are of the view that if at all, the appellant was desirous of proving that the signatures as appearing on the cheque issued from his account were not genuine, then he could have procured a certified copy of his specimen signatures from the Bank and a request could have been made to summon the concerned Bank official in defence for giving evidence regarding the genuineness or otherwise of the signature on the cheque," the Court observed.

    Also, at the trial stage, the appellant had filed an application for comparing the signatures by a handwriting expert. Though the application was dismissed, it was never challenged.

    In these circumstances, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment.

    Case Title : Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod v. State of Gujarat and another

    Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 64

    Click here to read the judgment 

     

    Next Story