Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
V.RAMKUMAR, J
ARIYAMMA CYRIAC – Appellant
Versus
V.U.THOMAS – Respondent
Crl.MC/2737/2010
Negotiable Instruments - Section 138 - The court evaluated the admissibility of handwriting analysis in cheque-related disputes, noting the lack of evidence confirming the accused wrote the amount in the presence of the complainant.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an accused in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, sought to send a cheque for expert handwriting analysis, arguing it was a signed blank cheque given to the complainant without confirming if the accused wrote the amount in her presence.
Finding of the Court:
The court agreed with the lower court's decision to deny the request for handwriting analysis, emphasizing that there was no evidence from the complainant that the accused wrote the cheque in her presence, which was necessary for validating the handwriting claim.
Issues: Whether the accused could compel handwriting analysis of a cheque when the complainant did not witness the writing of the cheque amount by the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: A cheque's validity cannot be presumed solely on the basis of its delivery; the prosecution must establish that the accused wrote the cheque in the complainant's presence to allow for handwriting verification.
Final Decision: The Criminal M.C. is dismissed.
ORDER
The petitioner who is the accused in S.T.No.965 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Pala which is a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed C.M.P.No.72 of 2010 at the stage of defence evidence to forward the cheque in question to the handwriting expert for comparison regarding the writings in the cheque other than the signature. According to the petitioner what was handed over to the complainant was a signed blank cheque.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the specific allegation in the complaint is that the cheque was written and signed by the accused and she came to the house of the complainant along with her husband and handed over the same on 3/4/2006. Counsel further submitted that as against this the case of the complainant in the proof affidavit is that the accused wrote the amount in the cheque and came along with her husband to her house and signed the same. Going by the averment both in the complaint as well as in the sworn statement, the complainant had no case that the accused wrote the chqeue in her presence so as to vouch for the handwriting of the accused in the cheque. It is only if the complaint or the sworn statement would show that the accused wrote the cheque in her presence could the complainant be pinned down to the statement to say that the handwriting in the cheque belongs to the accused. When the complainant has no case that the accused wrote the cheque in her presence, merely because a cheque duly filled up was handed over to the complainant by the accused and her husband, it does not mean that the cheque was written by the accused in the presence of the complainant so as to seek a confirmation by an expert. Hence, the court below (the learned Magistrate) was fully justified in dismissing the application to send the cheque for comparison to the handwriting expert regarding the handwriting in the cheque which even the complainant is not able to vouch for as belonging to the accused. I do not find any good reason to interfere with the order. Hence, this Criminal M.C. is dismissed.
V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
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
