In a recent legal development, the Supreme Court has issued a noteworthy directive regarding Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court ruled that in cases where the accused contests the authenticity of the signature on a cheque, certified copies of the signatures from the bank can be summoned for comparison.
Explaining the rationale behind this decision, the court emphasized that indorsements on a cheque inherently carry a presumption of genuineness, as outlined in Section 188(e) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Consequently, the burden falls on the accused to present evidence refuting the presumed authenticity of the signatures.
The court highlighted the admissibility of certified copies under the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, without requiring additional formal proof. In specific instances, the court stated that obtaining a certified copy of the specimen signature maintained by the bank can be pursued. This can be achieved by utilizing the powers vested in the court under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
The case, presided over by Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, involved an appeal challenging the High Court’s refusal to accept additional evidence in a cheque dishonor case under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. The appellant sought to introduce evidence from a handwriting expert at the appellate stage.
The court, however, asserted that the power under Section 391 could only be invoked if the appellant had been prevented from presenting such evidence during the trial despite exercising due diligence. Notably, the accused had made no efforts to challenge his signature’s authenticity during the trial, failing to question the bank witness on this matter.
The court remarked, “…we are of the view that if at all, the appellant was desirous of proving that the signatures as appearing on the cheque issued from his account were not genuine, then he could have procured a certified copy of his specimen signatures from the Bank.”
Furthermore, it was revealed that the appellant had previously filed an application for signature comparison by a handwriting expert during the trial stage. Despite the dismissal of the application, no subsequent challenge was mounted.
In light of these circumstances, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s judgment in the case of Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod v. State of Gujarat and another. This landmark decision establishes the validity of certified bank signature copies as evidence in disputes arising under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab 
