Drawer Liable Even If Details Of Cheque Was Filled Up By Some Other Person; Handwriting Expert's Report Cannot Rebut Presumption U/s 139 NI Act: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that a drawer of a cheque is liable even if the details in the cheque have been filled up not by the drawer, but by some other person.

The presumption which arises on the signing of the cheque cannot be rebutted merely by the report of a hand-writing expert, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna observed.

In this case, the Delhi High Court permitted the accused in a cheque bounce case to engage a hand-writing expert to determine whether the details that were filled in the cheque were in his hand. The Trial Judge had earlier dismissed the application filed by the accused seeking to have the cheque in question, the specimen signature and handwriting of the accused examined by a government hand-writing expert. Allowing their appeal, the High court permitted to engage a hand-writing expert for the purpose of examining the disputed writings.

In appeal, referring to Section 139 NI Act, the Apex Court bench noted 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.

"For such a determination, the fact that the details in the cheque have been filled up not by the drawer, but by some other person would be immaterial. 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."

Allowing the appeal, the bench further observed:

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 details

Oriental Bank of Commerce vs Prabodh Kumar Tewar | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 714 | CrA 1260 of 2022 | 16 August 2022 | Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna

Headnotes

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138,139 - 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 accused 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 - 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. (Para 4,17)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment