9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1526X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the cheque was not issued in discharge of the debt, the presumption would hold good. It is not in dispute that in the instant case, the accused has signed the cheque. The only dispute is with regard to the age of the ink used in making the signature on the cheque and the age of the signature and contents of the cheque. It is found that the application filed by the accused before the trial Court was wholly frivolous and that the trial Court had rightly rejected the said application. The High Court ought not to have allowed the said application and thereby allowed the revision petition of the respondent-accused. Conclusion - i) The age of the ink used in the signature and the contents of the cheque were the only points of contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntion to the latest judgment of this Court in the case of Bir Singh vs. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197 ('Bir Singh') and contended that having regard to Section 118 read with Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, when once the negotiable instrument has been marked in evidence, presumption regarding its validity would arise and it is for the accused to displace the said presumption. That in the instant case, the respondent had sought to seek a forensic opinion to compare the contents of the cheque with the signature of the petitioner and the same was wholly unnecessary having regard to the judgment of this Court. 5. In this regard our attention was drawn to paragraphs 32, 33, 34 and 36 of the judgment in Bir Singh, wherein it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence. 36. Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt." 6. It is not in dispute that in the instant case, the accused has signed the cheque. The only dispute is with regard to the age of the ink used in making the signature on the cheque and the age of the signature and contents of the cheque. 7. We find that the application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
