The High Court of Kerala in a bench comprising the Hon’ble Justice P.G. Ajithkumar held that Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NI Act’) presumptively states that a cheque holder or drawer received it to discharge any debt or liability, without strong evidence.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The Petitioner was found guilty of violating Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881. He filed a Revision Petition under Sections 397 and 401 of the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioner was found guilty by the trial Court, and the evidence was re-appreciated by the appellate Court. The Petitioner filed two petitions to demonstrate the handwriting similarities in the checks.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Petitioner claimed that the trial Court did not present enough evidence and that, despite the Petitioner's rejection of consideration, the first Respondent did not sign Ext.P1.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The counsel argues that evidence from PW1 proves Ext.P1 was filled and signed by the Petitioner, and the trial Court's failure to compare handwriting is irrelevant. The Petitioner did not claim that the signature in Ext.P1 was not his rather stated that, it was just supplied as security.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that with his signature, the Petitioner admitted to issuance Ext.P1, allowing the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I.Act to be drawn. The Court analysed the resemblance of handwriting in Ext.P1 and Ext.X1, and the Apex Court ruled that the assumption cannot be rebutted solely by the report of a handwriting expert. The Court also ruled that the accused could raise further defences to support their claim that the cheque was not issued to cover a debt or duty.
The Decision of the Court:
The Courts ruled that the Petitioner failed to refute the assumption of the N.I. Act under Section 139, resulting in his conviction. The Court denied the revision petition, ruling that it lacked merit.
Case Title: Vibin Meleppuram vs. Denny Thomas
Coram: Hon’ble Justice P.G. Ajithkumar
Case No.: Crl. Rev. Pet No. 344 of 2023
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Prabhu K.N., Adv. Manumon A., Adv.Jayan Kuttichakku
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Niji K. Shahul, Adv. P.A. Ayub Khan, Adv. Maya M.N.
Read Order @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
