AI Overview...

Drawer Signature Differences: Legal Procedures Guide

Cheque dishonour cases are common in commercial transactions, and one frequent issue is drawer signature differences. When a bank returns a cheque marked drawer signature differ or signatures do not match, it raises questions about liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). This blog explores the procedures for handling differences in drawer signatures, drawing from key judicial precedents to guide complainants, accused, and legal practitioners.

Understanding these procedures is crucial, as courts emphasize that signature disputes do not automatically absolve the drawer. Instead, they trigger statutory presumptions and trial processes. Note: This is general information based on case law and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.

What Constitutes 'Drawer Signature Differences'?

Banks often return cheques with endorsements like drawer signature differ, signatures do not match, or incomplete signatures. These are not mere technicalities but grounds for potential criminal liability under Section 138 NI Act.

• Supreme Court View: Dishonour due to signature mismatch qualifies as an offence under Section 138, just like insufficiency of funds or stop payment. As held, dishonour on the ground that the 'signatures do not match' or that the 'image is not found'... implies that the specimen signatures do not tally. State Bank of Hyderabad, Gunfoundpy, hyderabad VS A. P. Sports Council, Hyderabad, Secretary, A. S. V. Prasad


• Incomplete Signatures: Even incomplete signatures or no image found trigger proceedings. Criminal prosecution against accused in such cases should be allowed to proceed where incomplete signature is appearing on cheque. Parvaiz Ahmad Bhat VS Fida Mohamamd Ayoub

The key is the statutory presumption under Section 139 NI Act: Once the cheque is issued and signed by the drawer, it is presumed to be for a legally enforceable debt unless rebutted.

Statutory Presumptions and Burden of Proof

Under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act, courts presume a cheque is issued for valid consideration if signed by the drawer.

Presumption Applies Even with Signature Disputes

• Signatures admitted? The body of the cheque filled by another is irrelevant. Even if the details in the cheque have not been filled up by drawer but by another person, this is not relevant to the defense whether cheque was issued towards payment of a debt. Tilak Raj VS Dharam Singh - 2024 Supreme(HP) 291


• No mandate for drawer to fill the entire cheque. Section 20 NI Act allows the holder to complete a signed blank cheque. S. Selvi VS R. Subramani - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 1789

Rebutting the Presumption

• Accused must provide credible evidence (not mere denial). The respondent failed to rebut the presumption with credible evidence. Megha Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. , Represented by its Managing Director, R. Prasad VS Ambikapathy - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 3145


• Mere statement in Section 313 CrPC is insufficient without proof. Md. Gulzar Hussain VS State of Assam - 2019 Supreme(Gau) 1066

Example: In a case, the accused neither disputed signatures nor adduced rebuttal evidence, leading to conviction. Md. Gulzar Hussain VS State of Assam - 2019 Supreme(Gau) 1066

Procedures at Pre-Trial and Cognizance Stage

Filing Complaint (Section 200 CrPC)

1. Cheque presented within validity; returned with signature discrepancy.


2. Statutory notice under Section 138(b) NI Act demanding payment within 15 days.


3. No payment? File complaint within 30 days.

Courts reject quashing under Section 482 CrPC for signature disputes:
- The signature dispute is a matter for trial, as established in Apex Court precedents. Omkar Lohiya VS State of U. P. - 2023 Supreme(All) 2286
- High Courts uphold: Dishonour of cheque-Not only cases of dishonour... on accounts of 'stop payment' and 'account closed' have also been brought within ambit. Mohammad Shafi Wani VS Noor Mohammad Khan - 2022 Supreme(J&K) 145

Magistrate's Role at Cognizance

• Compare signatures under Section 73 Evidence Act if needed. Magistrate had also compared signature... and did not find variation. Kanshi Ram Bansal VS Suman Malhotra


• Summon if prima facie case exists, ignoring defences. Omkar Lohiya VS State of U. P. - 2023 Supreme(All) 2286

Trial Procedures for Signature Disputes

Defence Evidence under Section 243(2) CrPC

Accused often seek handwriting expert opinion under Section 45 Evidence Act.

When Expert Opinion is Allowed

• Best Witness is Bank Manager: In case of denial of signature of drawer of cheque best witness would be concerned Bank Manager and not handwriting expert. Kanshi Ram Bansal VS Suman Malhotra Ramya VS State Bank of India


• Courts dismiss frivolous requests if signatures admitted and cheque dishonoured for funds/signature mismatch. No useful purpose would be served by comparing the handwriting. Tilak Raj VS Dharam Singh - 2024 Supreme(HP) 291

Key Rulings on Expert Evidence

| Scenario | Court Ruling | Citation |
|----------|--------------|----------|
| Signatures admitted, body filled by other | Immaterial; presumption holds | Ramesh Chauhan VS Dhani Ram - 2022 Supreme(HP) 803 |
| Dishonour for funds + signature issue | Primary reason is funds; proceed to trial | Suresh Singh Sikarwar vs Radheshyam Sharma - 2024 Supreme(MP) 723 |
| Request to send for FSL | Useless if signatures not disputed | S. Selvi VS R. Subramani - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 1789 |

• Delay Tactics: Courts quash applications filed to prolong trials. Kanshi Ram Bansal VS Suman Malhotra

Bank Manager's Testimony

• Confirms reason for dishonour (e.g., funds, not just signature). Cheque was dishonored not on account of difference in signature but on account of insufficient funds. Kanshi Ram Bansal VS Suman Malhotra

Appellate and Revision Stages

Appeal Against Acquittal (Section 378 CrPC)

• Acquittals based solely on signature disputes overturned if presumption not rebutted. The trial court acquitted the respondent on grounds of signature alteration - Appellate court emphasized that insufficient funds is the primary reason. Suresh Singh Sikarwar vs Radheshyam Sharma - 2024 Supreme(MP) 723


• Re-appreciation of evidence: The accused/respondent neither has challenged... nor has disputed his signature... no rebuttal evidence. Conviction restored. Md. Gulzar Hussain VS State of Assam - 2019 Supreme(Gau) 1066

Revision (Section 397 CrPC)

• Interlocutory orders (e.g., denying expert) not revisable. Ramya VS State Bank of India

Special Scenarios: Forgery and Banking Liability

• Forgery: Distinct from mismatch. Forged signature cheque does not authorize debit; bank liable. A cheque on which the Signature of the constitute is forged, is not a cheque. State Bank of Hyderabad, Gunfoundpy, hyderabad VS A. P. Sports Council, Hyderabad, Secretary, A. S. V. Prasad - 1978 Supreme(AP) 308


• Security Cheques: Even labelled security, dishonour triggers Section 138 if liability exists. 00600058554

Key Takeaways and Best Practices

• For Complainants: Document loan agreements, send proper notice, rely on bank slip. Proceed despite signature endorsement.


• For Accused: Admit/deny signatures early; gather robust rebuttal (bank records, witnesses). Avoid delaying tactics.


• Procedural Tips:


• Trial courts: Use Section 73 for initial comparison.


• No quashing pre-trial for signature issues.


• Presumption under Section 139 is strong; mere denial fails.

In most cases, signature differences lead to trial, not dismissal. Courts prioritize commercial efficacy over technical defences. S.S.RANGASWAMY vs GANESH G B

Conclusion

Handling differences in drawer signatures requires navigating presumptions, trial procedures, and judicial scrutiny. From cognizance to appeal, the focus remains on whether the cheque represents enforceable liability. Precedents affirm that signature mismatches do not derail Section 138 proceedings unless convincingly rebutted.

Stay informed, act promptly, and seek professional advice. Legal outcomes vary by facts—this overview simplifies complex case law for educational purposes only.

References drawn from Supreme Court and High Court judgments including cheque bounce, forgery, and banking cases.