In cases of dishonored cheques due to insufficient funds, the best witness for signature verification is the bank manager, not a handwriting expert.

M.L. MEHTA, J.

1. This is a revision petition filed against the order of the learned MM dated 11.11.2011, in the Complaint Case No. 44/2008 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) whereby the learned MM dismissed the application of the petitioner under Section 45 of the Evidence Act praying for examination of the signatures on the dishonored cheque by the FSL.

2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the present petition are that the petitioner issued two cheques bearing cheque no. 549103 dated 17.12.2007 and 549104 dated 26.12.2007 of the amount of Rs. 2.5 lacs each to the complainant/ respondent. The cheques were dishonored on presentation to the bank of the complainant/ respondent citing “insufficient funds”. Thereafter, a legal notice was issued and due to non-payment of the cheque amount, a complaint was filed in the Court of learned MM under Section 138 of the Act. The prosecution evidence was recorded and the prosecution witnesses cross-examined by the petitioner’s counsel. Thereafter, the petitioner, in his defense, moved an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for verification of the signatures on the dishonored cheque by the FSL. This application came to be dismissed by the learned MM vide order dated 11.11.2011. Hence, the present petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned MM erred in dismissing the application of the petitioner on the ground that the cheque was dishonored not for the reason, “signature differs”, but for the reason of “insufficient funds”. It was submitted that the signatures on the dishonored cheques were forged and ought to have been verified by an expert as the bank was not an expert to verify the signatures and nowadays, the documents are forged with great accuracy and it is very difficult to distinguish without formal examination by an expert. The petitioner relies upon Mrs. Kalyani Bhaskar v. Mrs. M.S. Sampornam, (2008) 2 SCC 258 and P.R. Ramakrishnan v. P. Govindarajan, 2007 CriLJ 1997 in support of his submissions.

4. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the complainant/ respondent submitted that the application of the petitioner before the trial court under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, nowhere states that the dishonored cheques were stolen from the petitioner and thus the question of forgery does not arise at all. It was submitted that the cheques were not dishonored by the bank due to falsity of signature, but due to insufficient funds. Hence, the application of the petitioner for verification of the signatures on the cheque by an expert is a delaying tactic, as observed by the learned MM. He relies upon kanshi Ram Bansal v. Suman Malhotra Crl. M.C. 3876/ 2011 and L.C. Goyal v. Mrs. Suresh joshi & Ors AIR 1999 Supreme Court 2222. It was further submitted that the order of the learned MM, being an interlocutory order is not amenable to the revisionary jurisdiction of this Court, hence not maintainable.

5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the evidence and the case laws cited by the parties.

6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am in agreement with the observations of the learned MM. The bank had not disputed the signatures of the petitioner on the cheque. The cheques were dishonored due to insufficiency of funds in the account of petitioner. The judgment of kalyani Bhaskar (Supra) is clearly distinguishable from the present case, as in that case the bank manager, during cross-examination had clearly stated that the signatures on the cheque had not been verified by the bank at the time of dishonor of the cheque. No such statement has been made by the bank official in his examination before the learned MM. Further in the case of P.R. Ramakrishnan (Supra), the Madras High Court had allowed the petition for verification of signatures on cheque on the facts of that case, as the reasons given by the trial Court for dismissing the app