Cheque bounce case: Accused should be allowed examination by handwriting expert, says HC

The court was dealing with a plea from one Rajesh Rana, who had approached the Punjab and Haryana high court in July 2019 after a judicial magistrate declined his application for examination by the fingerprint and handwriting expert

The accused in a cheque bounce case should be allowed examination by a handwriting expert if contradictory claims are made by the parties on purpose for which cheque was given, the Punjab and Haryana high court has ruled.

The accused in a cheque bounce case should be allowed examination by a handwriting expert if contradictory claims are made by the parties on purpose for which cheque was given, the Punjab and Haryana high court has ruled. (Image for representational purpose)

“...if the permission to examine the handwriting expert is not permitted on the ground that the holder has the authority to fill the body of the cheque, then the accused cannot even begin to establish his defence that a cheque issued as security has been filled up by someone other than him and misused. Thus, it would be unfair to shut out the defence of the accused at the threshold by not allowing the examination of the cheque in question by a handwriting expert,” the bench of Justice JS Bedi said.

The court was dealing with a plea from one Rajesh Rana, who had approached the high court in July 2019 after a judicial magistrate declined his application for examination by the fingerprint and handwriting expert.

The FIR pertained to October 2014 filed under the Negotiable Instruments Act against Rajesh Rana and some other persons on the allegation that the petitioner issued a cheque of ₹15 lakh to one Parmod Kumar in August 2013, which was dishonoured on account of ‘insufficient funds’.

The accused had claimed that a blank cheque was given to one Subhash Chand, who was a commission agent as a security to supply paddy as the company was running a rice mill, but that cheque was misused by the complainant in connivance with Chand and that he had no liability towards the complainant.

During the trial, the accused filed an application for calling the fingerprint and handwriting expert, but same was dismissed on the ground that since the accused had admitted that he had signed the cheque, the deposition of the expert witness was not required to compare the writing on the body of the cheque in question with handwriting of the signatory.

The HC observed that when a contention is raised that the complainant has misused the cheque by filling up the body of the same, even in a case, where a presumption can be raised under sections 118 (a) (presumption that cheque was issued for consideration) or 139 (presumption in holder of the cheque) of the Act, an opportunity must be granted to the accused for adducing evidence in rebuttal as the law places burden on the accused.

“The complainant will invariably not disclose that the body of the cheque has been filled up by him or at his instance even where the signatures on the cheque have been accepted by the accused. Without doubt, the holder of the cheque has the authority to fill the same and the cheque would be a valid instrument but to start with, the first step available with an accused to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt is by examining a handwriting expert to testify that the signatory and the author of the body of the cheque are different persons,” the bench observed, adding that even if the difference in writing is established, the accused will still have to rebut the presumption under the Act that the cheque is a valid tender and that he had made the payment to the complainant but despite that fact, the complainant filled up the cheque and presented the same leading to it being dishonoured.