Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2022 (9) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2022 (9) TMI 264 - SC - Indian Laws


Issues:
- Permission to engage a hand-writing expert to determine authorship on a disputed cheque
- Application of Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
- Liability of a drawer who signs a cheque
- Rebutting the presumption under Section 139
- Relevance of details filled in the cheque by a person other than the drawer

Analysis:
1. The appeal questioned the High Court's decision allowing the respondent to engage a hand-writing expert to determine authorship on a disputed cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the evidence of a hand-writing expert would be immaterial in determining the purpose for which the cheque was handed over. Section 139 of the NI Act raises a presumption that a drawer handing over a signed cheque is liable unless proven otherwise during trial.

2. The case involved a body corporate alleging that a consortium of companies availed credit facilities, and a cheque towards dues was dishonored. The appellant initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act. The first respondent admitted to signing the cheque, leading to the question of liability under the Act.

3. The Supreme Court cited precedents like Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar and Kalamani Tex v. P. Balasubramanian, reiterating that a drawer who signs a cheque is presumed liable unless evidence rebuts the presumption under Section 139. The court highlighted that even if details in the cheque are filled by someone other than the drawer, it does not affect the liability unless proven otherwise.

4. The judgment clarified that the presumption under Section 139 is rebuttable, and the standard of proof required is that of a "preponderance of probabilities." The accused can raise a defense based on materials submitted by the complainant. The report of a hand-writing expert alone cannot rebut the presumption arising from the signing of the cheque.

5. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order permitting the engagement of a hand-writing expert. The report obtained as per the impugned order was deemed inadmissible during trial. The decision did not affect other defenses the respondents may raise regarding the issuance of the cheque not in discharge of a debt or liability.

6. Consequently, the application for a hand-writing expert examination was dismissed, and the rights and contentions of the parties during the trial were preserved. Pending applications were disposed of, concluding the judgment.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates