In, Oriental Bank of Commerce vs Prabodh Kumar Tewari, SC held that, The presumption which arises on the signing of the cheque cannot be rebutted merely by the report of a hand-writing expert. 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 or in discharge of a liability.
Facts
The appellant is the complainant in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. He seeks to question the order of a Single Judge by which the respondents were permitted to engage a hand-writing expert to seek an opinion on whether “the authorship on the questioned writings” (the disputed cheque) can be attributed to the respondents. The respondent admits that he signed and handed over a cheque to the appellant. According to the respondent a signed blank cheque was handed over by him.
In the Present Appeal, The question which arises is whether the High Court was correct in permitting the respondent to engage a hand-writing expert to determine whether the details that were filled in the cheque were in the hand of the respondent.
Appellant: During the course of the hearing, it is not in dispute that the first respondent has admitted to having signed the cheque.
That even assuming, as the first respondent submits, that the details in the cheque were not filled in by the drawer, this would not make any difference to the liability of the drawer.
Court Observation
The Single Bench of Supreme Court of India, While noting the statutory provisions observed that, In, Bir Singh vs Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197 after discussing the settled line of precedent of this Court on this issue, a two-Judge Bench held: It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer.
Further after considering the several judicial precedents, SC observed that, A drawer who signs a cheque and hands it over to the payee, is presumed to be liable unless the drawer adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque has been issued towards payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. The presumption arises under Section 139.
Court Judgment
The Supreme Court while setting aside the order of HC has held that; For the reasons set out below, this appeal allowed against the order of the High Court for the reason that Section 139 of the NI Act raises a presumption that a drawer handing over a cheque signed by him is liable unless it is proved by adducing evidence at the trial that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability. The evidence of a hand-writing expert on whether the respondent had filled in the details in the cheque would be immaterial to determining the purpose for which the cheque was handed over.
Therefore, no purpose is served by allowing the application for adducing the evidence of the hand-writing expert.
Case: Oriental Bank of Commerce vs Prabodh Kumar Tewari
Citation: Criminal Appeal No 1260 of 2022
Bench: Hon’ble Dr Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
Decided on: 16thAugust, 2022.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
No comments:
Post a Comment