Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 18669
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
MURUKAN A.L – Appellant
Versus
RENJITH M.R – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 4290 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY, SRI.MATHEW DEVASSI, SMT.DIVYADEVI V.G., SMT.ANGEL GYLES, SMT.PARVATHY R.
For the Respondents: SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK
The court upheld the trial court's dismissal of a request for expert opinion on signatures, affirming that an admission of signature does not suffice to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act.
Headnote:In this matter, the petitioner contends that a cheque issued for a repayment has been dishonoured, claiming the debt was discharged earlier. The court evaluated the defence based on documents presented indicating repayment, while the opposing party denied execution of such documents. The court found the initial trial court's dismissal of the request for expert opinion on signatures did not constitute an error in judgment. The ruling hinges upon the applicant's ability to rebut the presumption of dishonour under Section 139 of the NI Act and affirmed the trial court's reasoning as justifiable. The final outcome was a dismissal of the Crl.M.C. while providing guidance on future considerations if the presumption is rebutted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of alleged cheque dishonour and prior repayments. (Para 1 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments for expert opinions on document signatures. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 3. court's reasoning and observance of evidence. (Para 3 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. affirmation of the burden to rebut presumptions established. (Para 9) |
O R D E R
The petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.10 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Changanassery, which has been registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the 1st respondent alleging the commission of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('NI Act', in short).
2. The petitioner has stated in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case that, during the cross-examination of the 1st respondent (PW1-complainant), the petitioner had raised a specific defence regarding the repayment of his liability, which is reflected in Exts.D1 and D2 documents. However, PW1 bluntly denied the execution of the said documents. In order to discredit the oral testimony of PW1, the petitioner filed an application for comparison of the said documents with the signature of PW1 by an expert. But, by the impugned Annexure IX order, the Trial Court has dismissed the application by observing that Exts.D1 and D2 are insufficient to rebut the presumption. Annexure IX order is ex facie erroneous and untenable. Hence, the Crl.M.C.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Although the service of notice is complete on the
1st respondent, there is no appearance for him.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner had, at the first instance, issued Annexure I reply notice to the 1st respondent categorically stating that he had repaid the entire amount due to the 1st respondent. Therefore, the cheque was not supported by consideration, and therefore, there is no legally enforceable debt payable by the petitioner. Nevertheless, the 1st respondent filed Annexure II complaint alleging that the petitioner had committed the offence under Section
138 of the NI Act. In the cross-examination of PW1, he was confronted with Ext.D1 and D2 documents, but he denied the execution of the documents. Actually, the transaction between the petitioner and the 1st respondent took place in 2018. The cheque was also issued at that point of time as security. Though the debt was repaid, the 1st respondent did not return the cheque. Instead, after four years, the 1st respondent had clandestinely written the date on the cheque as 25.05.2022, presented the same and got it dishonoured. In view of the evidence of PW1 and Exts.D1 and D2 documents, it is imperative to get the documents examined by an expert, so as to discredit the oral testimony of PW1. However, the Trial Court has failed to comprehend the defence of the petitioner in its proper perspective, and has directed the petitioner to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act. Hence, Annexure IX order may be set aside.
5. The 1st respondent has filed a complaint on the specific allegation that the cheque dated 25.05.2022 issued by the petitioner towards a legally enforceable debt of Rs.5,00,000/- got dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the petitioner's bank account.
6. The petitioner's specific defence is that the transaction took place in 2018. The petitioner had only borrowed Rs.40,000/- from the 1st respondent, which he had discharged by repaying Rs.45,000/- to the 1st respondent. The said transactions are reflected in Exts.D1 and D2 documents, which is executed by the 1st respondent. However, the 1st respondent has bluntly denied the execution of Exts.D1 and D2 documents.
7. The Trial Court, taking note of the fact that the petitioner has admitted his signature on the cheque, and the fact that Exts.D1 and D2 documents had been marked subject to proof, has rightly held that the mere cross- examination of PW1 is insufficient to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act. Accordingly, the Trial Court has reje
