The accused bears the burden of proof when denying authorship of a signature on a cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

ORDER

Dated this the 25^th day of May, 2022 This revision is filed challenging concurrent findings of guilt of the revision petitioner, for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881 (for short the N.I.Act’) and passing of orders of conviction and sentence respectively by Temporary Special Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of Cases under of N.I.Act, Thiruvananthapuram, (for short ‘the trial court’) and Court of Sessions, Thiruvananthapuram (for short ‘the appellate court’).

2. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, signature in the cheque was denied by him but, the complainant failed to take steps to sent the same to an expert for getting opinion on authorship of signature. According to him, it was his burden to establish that the disputed signature was not of him.

3. True that the burden lies on the accused when he denies his signature to establish that the signature allegedly put by him and found in the cheque was not authored by him. The revision petitioner had adduced oral evidence as DW1 and his stand during examination was that the Firm namely S.B. Associates in which he had joined as a partner on invitation of complainant’s brother and invested Rs.4,00,000/- for the purpose of the business carried on by it, was wound up. According to him, in the shelf of the office where the Firm was functioning signed and unsigned cheques and promissory notes were left by him after the closure of the business. Lateron some disputes arose between the complainant and he misused an unsigned cheque so kept by him and the prosecution in question was filed against him.

4. The version of DW1 that unsigned cheque was picked up from the office where signed cheques of him were also available itself creates suspicion. A prudent man, if he has intention to misuse, will only opt to take signed cheques, if available. DW1’s version as above being incredible, credence also cannot be given to his version denying the authorship of signature in Ext.P1.

5. The appendix of the judgment of the trial court, would disclose to this Court that the evidence of the revision petitioner is confined to his own oral evidence. The documentary evidence consist only copies of the plaint in OS 224/15 of Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram and an affidavit and deposition of PW1 in the said case. The oral and documentary evidence tendered by the revision petitioner will not help him to rebut the presumption stands available to the complainant. The trial court has considered those aspects in the proper perspective and passed the judgment, now assailed by the accused. The appellate court has dismissed the appeal and confirmed its judgment. The position of law is settled in Bir Singh vs. Mukesh Kumar [2019 (1) KHC 774 (SC)] that concurrent findings of the courts below evenif erroneous, cannot be interfered with in revision, unless the judgment suffers for a jurisdictional error. A jurisdictional error having not been pointed out by the revision petitioner, the revision petition is not liable to be taken on file.

Revision Petition fails and is dismissed in limine.