[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Jayan vs A.Ganesan on 13 February, 2026
2026:KER:13040
Crl.M.C No.5947/2020 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 24TH MAGHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 5947 OF 2020
ORDER DATED 08.12.2020 IN CRL.M.P NO.284/2017 IN ST NO.6
OF 2016 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT- IV,
THRISSUR
PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
JAYAN
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O. KIZHAKKUPUTHEDATH GOPI, VILVATTOM VILLAGE, VIYYUR
P.O. THRISSUR.
BY ADV SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS & COMPLAINANT:
1 A.GANESAN, S/O. ANCHANIL APPUKUTTAN,
KOLAZHY VILLAGE, THRISSUR 680 010.
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.
BY ADV SHRI.T.A.SHAIN
SRI RENJIT GEORGE, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
11.02.2026, THE COURT ON 13.02.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:13040
Crl.M.C No.5947/2020 2
ORDER
The order dated 08.12.2020 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court-IV, Thrissur in C.M.P NO.284/2017 in S.T No.6/2016 refusing the
request of the accused in the said case to send the cheque involved in
that case for expert analysis of the handwriting therein, is under
challenge in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2. The offence alleged in the aforesaid case is under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, 'the N.I Act'). Right
from the very beginning, the petitioner/accused took up the defence that
the aforesaid cheque was issued as a signed blank cheque and that it
was not supported by any consideration. It is the further case of the
petitioner that the complainant/first respondent had caused all the
entries including the amount mentioned in that cheque, except the
signature of the petitioner, and presented the same without the
knowledge of the petitioner. During cross-examination, the
complainant/PW1 strongly denied the above version and stated that the
petitioner had made the above entries at the residence of the
complainant in his presence. Now, the petitioner seeks to disprove the
2026:KER:13040
Crl.M.C No.5947/2020 3
above statement of the complainant by analysing through an expert, the
handwritings in the impugned cheque with the admitted handwriting of
the petitioner.
3. The learned Magistrate rejected the above request by relying
on the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bir Singh v.
Mukesh Kumar [2019 (1) KLT 599 SC], and observed that filling up
the particulars in the cheque by a person other than the drawer, will not
invalidate the cheque. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner is
here before this Court with this petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned
counsel for the first respondent, and the learned Public Prosecutor
representing the State of Kerala.
5. It is true that a cheque will not be rendered invalid or
disqualified for criminal prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I Act for
the reason that the entries in that cheque are made by a person other
than the signatory to that cheque, who is the drawer. But, at the same
time, if there is evidence to show that the signatory to that cheque never
intended to incorporate the other entries like amount, date and the name
of the payee, and that those entries were incorporated in that document
2026:KER:13040
Crl.M.C No.5947/2020 4
without the knowledge and consent of the drawer, then it would lead to
the irresistible conclusion that the said cheque was not duly executed by
the drawer. In other words, the proof of due execution of a cheque by
the drawer requires the inevitable evidence that the entries in that
cheque including the amount and date were made in accordance with
the will of the drawer. The question whether those entries were made by
a third person is insignificant if it is shown that the drawer of the cheque
intended to have those entries in the cheque issued by him. However, in
a case where the person who has been prosecuted for the commission of
offence under Section 138 of the N.I Act strongly disputes the entries in
the cheque including the amount, date, name of the payee etc., he
cannot be curtailed of his right to adduce evidence in support of the
above contention. As far as the present case is concerned, the petitioner
seeks to establish his contention that he did not make the entries like
amount, date, name of the payee etc in the impugned cheque as stated
by the complainant/first respondent before the Trial Court. If the
petitioner succeeds in showing that the above entries were not made by
him in the impugned cheque, then it would lead to the irresistible
conclusion that the complainant/first respondent made false statements
2026:KER:13040
Crl.M.C No.5947/2020 5
before the Trial Court in his evidence as PW1. When viewed in the above
perspective, the request of the petitioner to have the handwritings in the
cheque analysed by an expert by comparing it with his admitted
handwritings, assumes great relevance; and the rejection of the above
request would amount to denial of opportunity to him to prove his
contention that the cheque was not executed and issued by him in
discharge of any legally enforceable debt.
6. It is pertinent to note in this context that, the comparison of
the handwritings in the impugned cheque has to be made with the
contemporaneous admitted handwritings of the petitioner/accused in or
around the period when the aforesaid cheque was said to have been
executed and issued by him. The fact that the present handwriting of
the accused is likely to vary from the handwritings in the impugned
cheque which were written long back, is a matter to be taken note of
while sending the cheque for analysis by the handwriting expert. It is for
avoiding the error in the above regard that the handwritings of the
accused which are contemporaneous with the entries in the impugned
cheque are required for analysis by the expert. That being so, the
petitioner/accused is bound to produce the contemporaneous relevant
2026:KER:13040
Crl.M.C No.5947/2020 6
documents containing his admitted/undisputed handwritings for the
purpose of sending the same to the expert along with the impugned
cheque. Subject to the fulfilment of the above requirement by the
petitioner/accused, his request to send the cheque to a handwriting
expert, has to be allowed.
Resultantly, the Crl.M.C stands allowed as follows:
i) The order dated 08.12.2020 of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-IV, Thrissur in C.M.P No.284/2017 in S.T No.6/2016 is
hereby set aside.
ii) The learned Magistrate is directed to take the necessary
steps to forward the impugned cheque in that case, along with the
documents containing the admitted/undisputed handwritings of the
accused during the contemporaneous period, to the State Forensic
Science Laboratory, for getting expert opinion as to whether the
handwritings in the said cheque, except the signature, were that of the
petitioner/accused.
iii) It is made clear that the petitioner/accused is having the
responsibility to furnish the contemporaneous documents containing his
2026:KER:13040
Crl.M.C No.5947/2020 7
admitted/undisputed handwritings, for sending the same to the Forensic
Science Laboratory for a comparison of those handwritings with the
handwriting in the impugned cheque.
iv) If the petitioner/accused fails to provide the documents
referred above, for comparing and conducting an effective analysis of the
handwritings found in the impugned cheque, the learned Magistrate shall
proceed with the case on the basis of the available evidence.
(sd/-)
G. GIRISH, JUDGE
jsr
2026:KER:13040
Crl.M.C No.5947/2020 8
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 5947 OF 2020
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A TYPED COPY OF THE CROSS EXAMINATION OF PWI IN
S.T. NO. 6/2016 OF THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE NO. IV THRISSUR.
ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE CRL.M.P. NO. 284/2017 IN
S.T. NO. 6/2016 OF THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE NO. IV. THRISSUR.
ANNEXURE C CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.P. NO.
284/2017 DATED 08.12.2020 IN S.T. NO. 6/2016
OF THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE NO. IV, THRISSUR.
