2025 (3) TMI 181 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - invocation of jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C - application for sending the alleged cheque to handwriting expert for determination of the age of the contents and the signature has been turned down - HELD THAT - The petitioner has indeed not disputed his signature contained in the cheque. Therefore the trial court has rightly rejected the prayer for sending the cheque and other exhibits to handwriting experts. The trial court has also taken into consideration the delayed motion of the petitioner to send the exhibits to the handwriting experts. Although the judgments in subject cited by both the parties at the Bar are conflicting views on the subject but the fact remains that under the statutory command every case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act needs to be concluded within a stipulated time framed as prescribed under Section 143 of the N.I. Act. In the instant case the complaint was filed on 24.02.2020 and about five years have gone by. However the matter is still pending for conclusion of the trial. In that scenario the trial court s order rejecting the application of the petitioner appears to be unquestionable. At the same time right of an accused to defend in the criminal case is indefeasible. In the case of present nature when presumption is operating against the petitioner which is rebuttable in nature the right of the petitioner-accused to lead evidence in his rebuttal is also inalienable right. Therefore the petitioner being accused has right to adduce all evidence under his command to disprove the case of the complainant-opposite party. The petitioner should get at least an opportunity to lead his evidence in rebuttal. Therefore it is open for the petitioneraccused to obtain report from a private handwriting expert and place it on record if so advised. It is also open for the petitioner to lead any other evidence to prove his case on his defence but that should not be at the cost of delaying the proceeding inordinately. Conclusion - The petitioner is allwoed an opportunity to present defense evidence including expert reports to rebut the complainant s case. The CRLMC is disposed of.

The petitioner challenged the order of the learned S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack, which denied the request to send a disputed cheque to a handwriting expert to determine the age of the ink used for the signature and other contents. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in refusing this request, which the petitioner argued was essential for a fair trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act).

The petitioner argued that the cheque was misused by the complainant, alleging that a blank signed cheque was filled with different ink to fabricate a liability. The petitioner relied on precedents from higher courts, asserting the right to rebut the presumption of liability under Section 139 of the N.I. Act by examining the cheque through a handwriting expert. The petitioner cited cases like Kalyani Baskar v. M.S. Mampoornam and Gavisiddeshwara Hiremath v. Sanjeev Basavarajappa Karadakal to support the argument that denying expert examination could result in an unfair trial.

The complainant opposed this, arguing that the petitioner's admission of the signature on the cheque suffices to presume liability under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. The complainant relied on precedents such as S. Gopal v. D. Balachandran and Rajendran v. Usharani, which support the view that once the signature is admitted, the cheque is presumed to be issued for discharging a liability, even if filled by another person.

The court analyzed the arguments and noted that the petitioner had not disputed the signature on the cheque during the trial. The trial court had rejected the application to send the cheque for expert examination, considering the delay and the stage of the proceedings. The court emphasized the statutory requirement under Section 143 of the N.I. Act for expeditious disposal of such cases and noted that more than three years had elapsed since the complaint was filed.

The court acknowledged conflicting judicial views on the necessity of expert examination in such cases but highlighted the importance of concluding trials within the statutory timeframe. The court recognized the petitioner's right to defend against the presumption of liability but stressed that this should not unduly delay the proceedings. The court allowed the petitioner to obtain a private expert report and present it as evidence, provided it does not cause inordinate delay.

The court concluded that while it would not interfere with the trial court's order, it would allow the petitioner an opportunity to present defense evidence, including expert reports, to rebut the complainant's case. The trial court was directed to provide the petitioner at least one opportunity to present such evidence.

Significant holdings include the reaffirmation of the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act and the acknowledgment of the accused's right to rebut this presumption. The court balanced the need for a fair trial with the statutory mandate for timely resolution of cases under the N.I. Act.

← Previous Next →