The complainant must prove that the cheque's signature is valid to establish a claim under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been preferred as against the order of acquittal passed in S.T.C.No.1348 of 2022, dated 10.05.2024, on the file of the District Munsif Court-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Shenkottai.

2. The appellant is the complainant and the respondent is an accused in the complaint lodged for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. The crux of the complaint is that, on 11.01.2021, the respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs only) from the appellant/complainant by promising to repay the same within 20 months. On the date of borrowal itself, the respondent issued post-date cheque bearing No.061268, which was drawn in Federal Bank, Shengottai, to the appellant. When the complainant presented the cheque for collection at his bank viz., Canera Bank, Shenkottai, on 21.09.2022, the same was returned on 23.09.2022 for the reason 'signature differs'. After having served the notice to the respondent as per the mandatory provision of Negotiable Instrument Act, the appellant/complainant has lodged a private complaint before the trial Court against the respondent for punishing him under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

4. Before the trial Court, on the side of the appellant, he himself was examined as P.W.1 and six documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. On the side of the respondent, he himself was examined as D.W.1 and four documents were marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D.4.

5. The defence taken by the respondent is that the impugned cheque does not contain his signature, though the cheque has been issued by him to the complainant, but only as security. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the respondent not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to “NI Act” for brevity) and dismissed the complaint by acquitting the respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant submitted that the trial Court ought to have granted the benefit of 139 NI Act presumption to the complainant, but it is not done so. The cheque itself has been returned for the reason that the signature in the cheque differs.

7. As per the definition of cheque under Section 6 of the NI Act, a cheque is the bill of exchange drawn on a specified banker and not expressed to be payable otherwise than on demand and it includes the electronic image of a truncated cheque and a cheque in the electronic form.

For a better understanding, Section 6 of the NI Act is extracted hereunder:

“A “cheque” is a bill of exchange drawn on a specified banker and not expressed to be payable otherwise than on demand and it includes the electronic image of a truncated cheque and a cheque in the electronic form.

Explanation I.—For the purposes of this section, the expressions— (a)"a cheque in the electronic form" means a cheque drawn in electronic form by using any computer resource and signed in a secure system with digital signature (with or without biometrics signature) and asymmetric crypto system or with electronic signature, as the case may be;

(b)“a truncated cheque” means a cheque which is truncated during the course of a clearing cycle, either by the clearing house or by the bank whether paying or receiving payment, immediately on generation of an electronic image for transmission, substituting the further physical movement of the cheque in writing.

Explanation II.—For the purposes of this section, the expression “clearing house” means the clearing house managed by the Reserve Bank of I