Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.
Krishna Devi Shukla – Appellant
Versus
K.s. Oil Limited – Respondent
CRM-M-33407-2017
Decided On : 23-05-2022
Handwriting Expert - Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 20, Section 138 - The court discussed the relevance of examining a handwriting expert in a case involving a dishonoured cheque. The court referred to various judgments, including Kalyani Baskar v. M.S. Sampoornam, T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidhar, Shri. Ishwar v. Sri. Suresh, Baburao Madhavrao v. Vishwajit Pratapsing, Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan, Raj Kumar v. M/s Ram Krishan & Sons, and others, to establish the accused's right to rebut the presumption of a legally enforceable debt and the necessity of granting the accused an opportunity to adduce evidence in rebuttal. The court allowed the accused to examine a handwriting expert and directed the trial court to conclude the trial within a specified timeframe.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-accused sought to examine a handwriting expert in a case involving a dishonoured cheque. The accused claimed that the cheque had been misused and manipulated by the complainant. The trial court had dismissed the application to send the cheque for examination by a handwriting expert, citing the admitted signatures on the cheque and the authority of the holder to fill in the body of the cheque. The accused challenged the trial court's decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the accused to examine a handwriting expert as a defence witness within four weeks and directed the trial court to conclude the trial within eight weeks thereafter.
Issues: The main issue was the relevance of examining a handwriting expert in a case involving a dishonoured cheque, particularly when the accused claimed that the cheque had been misused and manipulated by the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on various judgments to establish the accused's right to rebut the presumption of a legally enforceable debt and the necessity of granting the accused an opportunity to adduce evidence in rebuttal. The court emphasized the accused's right to a fair trial and the importance of allowing the accused to present evidence in support of their defence.
Final Decision: The court quashed the previous orders and allowed the accused to examine a handwriting expert as a defence witness. The trial court was directed to conclude the trial within a specified timeframe.
JUDGMENT
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J. - The prayer in the present petition is for quashing of the order dated 26.05.2017 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chandigarh, whereby the application of the petitioner-accused to examine a handwriting expert in her defence has been rejected and the order dated 09.08.2017 (Annexure P-2), whereby the aforementioned order has been upheld.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was summoned in a complaint case No.2649 of 2014. As per the contends of the complaint, the petitioner-accused had handed over a cheque for an amounting of Rs.39,46,500/- to the complainant and on presentation of the same, the said cheque was dishonoured leading to the summoning of the petitioner.
3. The trial was proceeding in the aforementioned complaint and the case was fixed for leading of defence evidence more particularly, the cross-examination of defence witness as DW-3.
4. The petitioner-accused moved an application for seeking the report of a handwriting expert in respect of the cheque in dispute. The case of the petitioner-accused was that she was an illiterate lady, who signed in Hindi and the said disputed cheque had been forged by the complainant-company by filling the date as well as the amount and the body of the cheque. As per the petitioner, the said cheque was in fact one of five cheques handed over to the complainant-company vide letter dated 11.02.2009 (Annexure P-3) and therefore, it was necessary to examine a handwriting expert to compare the signatures on the cheque with the handwriting on the body of the cheque.
5. A reply to the application was filed by the learned counsel for the complainant. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that as per Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, when an instrument is duly signed by the drawer and handed over to the holder in due course, the rest of the body of the instrument can be filled by the holder of the instrument and if the same is dishonoured, appropriate proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be initiated against the accused. Thus, it was held that even if the handwriting expert came to the conclusion that the handwriting of the person, who signed was different from the handwriting of the person, who filled up the body of the cheque, it would not further the case of the accused in any manner to establish his defence. Therefore, once there was no dispute regarding the signature of the accused on the dishonoured cheque, the prayer made in the application of the petitioner/accused was superfluous. Reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Gurmeet Singh Versus State of Haryana and another, 2012(2) RCR (Criminal)306.
6. The said order was challenged by the petitioner/accused before the Court of Additional District Judge, Chandigarh and the said Court endorsed the finding of the Trial Court. While doing so reference was made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao Versus Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited 2016(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 487, where it was held that in case of a loan taken by the accused, if a post dated cheque is issued towards repayment but described as a security cheque, the dishonour of the cheque would make the accused liable once the issuance of the cheque and signature thereon were admitted.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the judgments of the Trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court are completely contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T. Nagappa Versus Y.R. Muralidhar, 2008(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 926, 2008(5) SCC 633. His contention is that the defence of the accused-petitioner could not be curtailed on the premise that the examination of the handwriting witness in defence was superfluous. As per him, it is the consistent stand of the petitioner from the very outset that the cheque in question was a one of five cheques issued as a security cheque to the complainant.
The accused has the right to rebut the presumption of a legally enforceable debt and must be granted an opportunity to adduce evidence in rebuttal, including the examination of a handwriting expert.
The accused should be granted an opportunity to adduce evidence in rebuttal if a contention is raised that the complainant misused the cheque.
A signature on a cheque validates it regardless of who filled its contents; the accused's right to a fair trial includes opportunities to present evidence, provided it is not vexatious.
Accused must be allowed to present expert evidence when claiming misuse of a cheque to ensure a fair trial.
An accused has the right to present evidence to challenge the validity of a cheque, particularly when allegations of misuse are made.
The court emphasized the importance of independent expert testimony for establishing signature authenticity in forgery claims.
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
