Blank Cheque Voluntarily Signed & Handed Over By Drawer Towards Payment Attracts Presumption Under S.139 NI Act : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has reiterated that a blank cheque leaf, which has been voluntarily signed by the drawer and handed over to the payee towards some payment, will carry the presumption that it was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt as per Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

"...even if a blank cheque leaf is voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused towards some payment would attract the presumption under Section 139 of the Act and in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of the debt, the presumption would hold good," the Court observed relying on the judgment in Bir Singh v.Mukesh Kumar (2019).

Reversing the High Court's finding which allowed the application of the accused-drawer to seek a forensic opinion on the signature made on the blank cheque, the Bench Comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and A.G. Masih,  relying on the Judgment of Bir Singh vs. Mukesh Kumar, observed that once a blank cheque is issued towards the discharge of some payment, then a presumption regarding its validity would arise against the accused. It is for the accused to displace the said presumption.

In Bir Singh, the Supreme Court observed that even if a blank cheque leaf is voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused towards some payment then the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act would attract and in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of the debt, the presumption would hold good against the accused drawer.

“A meaningful reading of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act including, in particular, Sections 20, 87 and 139, makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in the discharge of a liability. 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. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of Section 138 would be attracted.” the Supreme Court observed in Bir Singh.

“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.”, the Supreme Court added in Bir Singh.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal preferred by the appellant-drawee of the cheque and thereby set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court.

Background

In the instant case, it was not in dispute that the accused has signed the cheque. The only dispute is about the age of the ink used in making the signature on the cheque and the age of the signature and contents of the cheque.

The accused drawer sought a forensic opinion to compare the contents of the cheque with the signature of the payee.

The Trial Court rejected the application for expert evidence, however, the High Court has allowed the application directing the Trial Court to send the cheques for forensic opinion to compare the contents of the cheque with the signature of the appellant drawee.

It is against the impugned order of the High Court that the drawee of the cheque has preferred the criminal appeal before the Supreme Court.

Case Details:K. RAMESH VERSUS K. KOTHANDARAMAN, Criminal Appeal No. 000763 / 2024

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 145

Click here to read the judgment