Oriental Bank of Commerce vs Prabodh Kumar Tewari

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

16 August 2022

Case No.

Criminal Appeal No. 1260 of 2022

Result

Allowed

Bench

D.Y. Chandrachud, A.S. Bopanna

Citation

[2022] 7 S.C.R. 72 : 2022 INSC 832

Headnote

Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 – ss. 138, 139 – Engagement of hand-writing expert to determine the details filled in the cheque – The respondent admits that he signed a blank cheque and handed over to the appellant – The High Court permitted the respondent to engage a hand-writing expert to determine whether the details that were filled in the cheque were in the handwriting of the respondent – Held: 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 – The presumption arises u/s. 139 – 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. Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197 : [2019]

2 SCR 24; Rangappa v. Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441 : [2010] 6 SCR 507 – relied on.

Kalamani Tex v. P. Balasubramanian (2021) 5 SCC 283 : 2021 (2) JT 519; Anss Rajashekar v. Augustus Jeba Ananth (2020) 15 SCC 348 : [2019] 1 SCR 731 –

referred to.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises from a judgment dated 24 July 2019 of a Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi. 3. The appellant is the complainant in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 18811. He seeks to question the order of a Single Judge by which the respondents were permitted to engage a hand-writing expert to seek an opinion on whether “the authorship on the questioned writings” (the disputed cheque) can be attributed to the respondents. 4. The respondent admits that he

View Subscription Plans →