Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 50846
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Shamim Ahmed, J
A. Senthil – Appellant
Versus
S. Venkatesawara Sathiskumar – Respondent
CRL RC No. 1255 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R. Krishnan
In proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, expert opinion for signature verification is unnecessary if the accused has not denied the signature, as the statutory presumption of a legally enforceable debt then operates in favour of the complainant.
Headnote:The case involves a Criminal Revision Petition challenging an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sankari, which dismissed a petition for expert opinion regarding a cheque dishonoured for 'Funds Insufficient' under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner contended that the cheque was misused and expert opinion was necessary to determine the genuineness of the signature, despite the Trial Court observing that the petitioner had not denied the signature during the cross-examination of PW.1. The main issue was whether expert opinion is necessary when the accused has not expressly denied their signature on a cheque in a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court reasoned that expert opinion cannot override statement of witnesses on fact and is unnecessary if the signature is not denied, as the statutory presumption comes into play in favour of the complainant once the signature is admitted or not denied. In the result, in view of the above discussions and reasons and in the light of the decisions referred to above, this Court is of the view that the Trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order, dismissing the petition, seeking to send the cheque in question for expert opinion and that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order of the Trial Court, which warrants no interference by this Court and this Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural background and facts of the cheque dishonour case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner's request for expert opinion to challenge cheque genuineness. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's view on the necessity of expert evidence when signatures are not denied. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. application of statutory presumptions regarding signed cheques and legally enforceable debts. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. dismissal of the revision petition and direction for expedited trial. (Para 16 , 17) |
ORDER
1. Since the Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of, at the admission stage itself and in view of the order to be passed in this petition, notice to the Respondent is dispensed with.
2. This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order, dated 29.04.2026, passed in Crl.MP.No.1 of 2025 in STC.No.1355 of 2019, by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sankari.
3. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the Respondent/ complainant had filed the above private complaint in STC.No.1355 of 2019, before the Trial Court, in respect of dishonour of a cheque, dated 06.06.2019 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, against the Petitioner/Accused. The Petitioner had filed the above petition in Crl.MP.No1 of 2025, seeking expert opinion. By the impugned order, the Trial Court had dismissed the said Petition. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the Revision Petitioner/ accused.
4. This Court heard Mr.R.Krishnan, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and considered his submissions and also perused the entire materials placed on record.
5. According to the Revision Petitioner/Accused, the cheque in question was given to some other person, namely one Karthikeyan and it was misused by the Respondent/complainant. Once the execution of the cheque in question is denied, expert opinion is necessary. The Trial Court erred in holding that expert opinion is not necessary, because the cheque in question was dishonoured for “Funds Insufficient” and not for “Signature Differs”. Expert evidence would aid the Court in determining the genuineness of the signature. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, by allowing this Criminal Revision Case.
6. It was the case of the Respondent/Complainant before the Trial Court that the Respondent/ complainant did not get the cheque of the accused from another person and there is no necessity for sending the cheque in question for expert opinion.
7. It is well settled that opinion of an expert cannot be more reliable than the statement of witnesses on fact and a finding cannot be based on sole testimony of an expert opinion. Therefore, a party to a proceeding cannot be permitted to adduce expert opinion as evidence, unless it is necessary for the court to form an opinion on such aspect.
8. In this case, in the impugned order, the Trial Court has observed that in the cross examination of PW.1, nowhere the Revision Petitioner/ accused has denied the signature found in the cheque in question and that the cheque in question was drawn on his Bank Account. It was further found by the Trial Court that only to fill up the lacuna on the side of the defence and to delay the proceedings, the Petition, seeking expert opinion, has been filed.
9. The Trial Court is competent to look into and find out the signature whether it is similar or not. Even if it is allowed, it is not going to help to the Trial Court in effectively adjudicating the lis, more particularly, in the light of the admitted legal position that expert's opinion evidence as to handwritings or signatures can ever take the place of substantive evidence. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in sending the said document for the expert opinion, since in this case, nowhere, the Revision Petitioner/ accused has denied his signature on cheque in question. Thus, the plea taken by the Revision Petitioner/ accused for sending the cheque in question appears to be only to delay the trial and only with an intention of diverting the case f
