Accused Can Present Handwriting Expert Evidence, But No Delay Allowed in Cheque Bounce Case

Get the full picture - access the original judgement of the court order here

Case Name

M/s Shiv Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Raptakos Brett & Company Ltd.(High Court of Orissa at Cuttack)

CRLMC No. 1719 of 2024

Date: 13th February 2025

Key Takeaways

• Accused’s Right to Defence: The accused has the right to present evidence, including expert reports, to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act) in cheque bounce cases.
• No Automatic Right to Send Cheque for Expert Analysis: If the accused admits their signature on the cheque, courts are not obliged to send the cheque for handwriting or ink analysis unless there’s a strong reason.
• Timeliness Matters: Applications to send documents for expert analysis should be made promptly; late requests may be seen as attempts to delay proceedings.
• Presumption Under Section 139 N.I. Act: Once signature is admitted, the law presumes the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt, but this presumption can be rebutted by the accused.
• Court’s Discretion: The trial court has discretion to allow or deny such applications, balancing the right to a fair trial with the need to avoid unnecessary delays.

Issue

Should the accused be allowed to send the disputed cheque and related documents to a handwriting expert to determine the age and authenticity of the ink and signatures, especially when the signature on the cheque is admitted?

Facts

• Parties:
• Complainant: M/s Raptakos Brett & Company Ltd., a pharmaceutical company.
• Accused: M/s Shiv Pharmaceuticals (formerly M/s Shiv Traders), a distributor for the complainant’s products in Odisha.
• Timeline:
• Between September 18, 2019, and September 30, 2019, the complainant supplied medicines to the accused.
• The accused issued a cheque (No. 016121 dated 30.12.2019) for ₹11,81,773 to clear dues.
• The cheque bounced due to “insufficient funds” when presented on December 30, 2019.
• The complainant sent a legal notice on January 3, 2020, which the accused received but did not comply with.
• The complainant filed a case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
• Dispute:
• The accused claimed the cheque was given as a blank security cheque and was misused by the complainant, who allegedly filled in the details later using different ink.
• The accused wanted the cheque and invoices to be examined by a handwriting expert to prove this claim.
• The trial court rejected this request, leading to the present petition before the High Court.

Arguments

Petitioner (Accused)

• Claimed the cheque was a blank security cheque, not meant for payment of any actual debt.
• Alleged the complainant filled in the cheque details later, possibly using different ink.
• Sought to send the cheque and invoices to a handwriting expert or forensic lab to determine the age and authenticity of the ink and signatures.
• Cited Supreme Court and High Court judgments supporting the right to have documents examined by experts for a fair trial, including:
• Kalyani Baskar (Mrs) v. M.S. Mampoornam (Mrs.), (2007) 2 SCC 258
• Gavisiddeshwara Hiremath vs. Sanjeev Basavarajappa Karadakal, 2019 SCC Online Kar 1842.

Opposite Party (Complainant)

• Opposed the request, arguing the accused had admitted his signature on the cheque.
• Cited legal precedents that once the signature is admitted, the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act applies, and the body of the cheque can be filled by anyone.
• Argued that the accused’s application was a tactic to delay the proceedings.
• Cited judgments including:
• S. Gopal v. D. Balachandran, MANU/TN/0119/2008
• Rajendran v. Usharani, MANU/TN/0919/2000
• Satish Jayantilal Shah v. Pankaj Mashuwala, 1996 CRI.L.J. 3099 (Gujarat High Court).

Key Legal Precedents

• Kalyani Baskar (Mrs) v. M.S. Mampoornam (Mrs.), (2007) 2 SCC 258:
• Held that the accused is entitled to rebut the complainant’s case and may request to send the cheque for expert examination, especially after the prosecution closes its evidence, unless the request is vexatious or meant to delay proceedings.
• Gavisiddeshwara Hiremath vs. Sanjeev Basavarajappa Karadakal, 2019 SCC Online Kar 1842:
• Discussed the court’s power under Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and Section 293 of Cr.P.C. to send documents for expert analysis, including ink age determination.
• S. Gopal v. D. Balachandran, MANU/TN/0119/2008:
• Stated that there is no law requiring the entire cheque to be written by the drawer; what matters is the signature. If the signature is admitted, the cheque is presumed to be validly issued.
• Rajendran v. Usharani, MANU/TN/0919/2000:
• Reiterated that the body of the cheque can be filled by anyone; the signature is key.
• Satish Jayantilal Shah v. Pankaj Mashuwala, 1996 CRI.L.J. 3099:
• Emphasized that the signature, not the handwriting of the body, is material for cheque validity.

Judgement

• Decision:
• The High Court refused to interfere with the trial court’s order rejecting the request to send the cheque and invoices for expert analysis at this late stage.
• Reasoning:
• The accused had already admitted his signature on the cheque during cross-examination and in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
• The application to send the cheque for expert analysis was made late in the proceedings, which could delay the trial unnecessarily.
• The right to a fair trial includes the right to present evidence, but not to delay proceedings.
• The accused is still allowed to present evidence, including a private expert’s report, in his defence, but must do so promptly.
• Order:
• The petition was disposed of with the direction that the trial court should give the accused at least one opportunity to present his defence evidence, including any expert report, but without causing further delay.

FAQs

Q1: Can the accused send the cheque for handwriting or ink analysis?

A: The court said the accused can present a private expert’s report as part of his defence, but the court itself will not send the cheque for analysis at this late stage.

Q2: Does it matter if the cheque was filled in by someone else?

A: No. As long as the accused admits his signature, the law presumes the cheque was issued for a valid debt, even if someone else filled in the details.

Q3: What if the accused claims the cheque was a blank security cheque?

A: The accused can try to rebut the presumption by presenting evidence, but the burden is on him to prove this claim.

Q4: What is the significance of Section 139 of the N.I. Act?

A: Section 139 creates a presumption that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt once the signature is admitted. The accused can rebut this presumption with evidence.

Q5: What happens next in the trial?

A: The accused can present his defence evidence, including any expert report, but must do so without causing further delay.