Blank Cheque Voluntarily Signed By Drawer Will Attract Presumption Of Liability U/S 139 N.I. Act: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently reiterated that even a blank cheque leaf which has been voluntarily signed by the drawer, towards payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('NI Act'), in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt.

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. 

Relying upon the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar (2019), and Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Prabodh Kumar Tewari (2022), the Single Judge Bench of Justice P.G. Ajithkumar reiterated that in such an instance, it would be immaterial whether the cheque had been filled in by any person other than the drawer. It added that the evidence of a hand-writing expert on whether the drawer had filled in the details in the cheque would also be immaterial to determining the purpose for which the cheque was handed over. 

The 1st respondent alleged that the cheque that had been issued by the revision petitioner in discharge of the money due from him had returned unpaid due to insufficient funds in the latter's account. The revision petitioner however denied the allegation and claimed that no money was due from him to the 1st respondent, although no evidence was adduced to this effect before the trial court. 

The trial court accordingly found the revision petitioner guilty, which was upheld by the Appellate Court as well. 

The revision petitioner argued that the lower courts entered the finding regarding the execution of the cheque by relying on the oral testimony of a prosecution witness, who had not seen the filling up of the cheque themselves. It was alleged that the cheque and the intimation issued from the bank regarding the dishonour of the cheque had similar handwriting, which would indicate that the cheque had been manipulated. 

He further claimed that he had filed two petitions before the trial court - one for affording an opportunity to adduce evidence to prove the said similarity and another requesting the trial court to compare the handwritings in the aforementioned two documents, which was not done by the court.

The revision petitioner added that in the agreement executed between himself and the 1st respondent, the latter had not affixed his signature on two pages, which fact had not been taken into account by the courts below while placing reliance on the said document. He thus claimed that there was a lack of evidence to prove that the cheque had been duly executed and was supported by consideration. 

The Court in this case noted that the revision petitioner had no case that the signature in the cheque was not put by him, but only that the same had been given as security alone. 

Thus, the Court concluded that since the issuance of the cheque with his signature had been admitted by the revision petitioner, the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I.Act was liable to be drawn.

Relying on Oriental Bank of Commerce (Supra),the Court added that the evidence of a hand-writing expert on whether the drawer himself had filled in the details in the cheque would be immaterial to determining the purpose for which the cheque was handed over, and that no purpose would be served by allowing the application to adduce the evidence of a handwriting expert. 

"Even if the details in the cheque have not been filled up by the drawer, but by another person, this is not relevant to the defence whether cheque was issued towards payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. It was further held that it would be open to the accused to raise all other defences which they may legitimately be entitled to otherwise raise in support of his plea that the cheque was not issued in pursuance of a pre-existing debt or outstanding liability," the Court had observed therein. 

It thus discerned that the aspect that the columns in the cheque had been filled in a different handwriting was immaterial, and added that the contention that the revision petitioner did not get enough opportunity to adduce evidence to show the same and compare the documents did not have substance. 

The Court thus held that the revision petitioner failed to rebut the presumption available under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, and proceeded to dismiss the revision petitions.

Counsel for the Revision Petitioner: Advocates Prabhu K.N., Manumon A., and Jayan Kuttichakku

Counsel for the Respondents: Public Prosecutor Maya M.N., and Advocates Niji K. Shahul, and P.A. Ayub Khan

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 731

Case Title: Vibin Meleppuram v. Denny Thomas & Anr. 

Case Number: CRL.REV.PET NO. 344 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download The Order