NI Act | Person Signing Cheque Can Be Held Liable Even If Someone Else Filled Details: Kerala HC

A Bench of Justice P.G. Ajithkumar held, “a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer"

Advocate Prabhu K.N. appeared for the Petitioner, Advocate Niji. K. Shahul NKS appeared for Respondent 1 and Advocate Maya M.N. appeared for the Respondent 2.

The complainant alleged that the accused issued a cheque that bounced due to insufficient funds. The accused argued that the execution of the cheque and the existence of consideration were not sufficiently proven. He contended that the handwriting in the cheque was manipulated and sought an opportunity to adduce evidence to support this claim.

However, the Court referred to legal precedent, particularly Section 139 of the N.I. Act, which established a presumption of liability when a signed cheque is handed over. The Court emphasized that the accused needed to present evidence to rebut this presumption. The argument regarding the similarity in handwriting between the cheque and another document was deemed immaterial to the defense. The Court added, “In Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar [(2019) 4 SCC 197] the Apex Court held that a meaningful reading of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act including, in particular, Sections 20, 87 and 139, makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer.”

The Court referred to Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Prabodh Kumar Tewari [2022 (5) KHC 560 : AIR OnLine 2022 SC 1365] and said, “the fact that the details in the cheque have been filled up not by the drawer, but by some other person would be immaterial. The presumption which arises on the signing of the cheque cannot be rebutted merely by the report of a handwriting expert. Even if the details in the cheque have not been filled up by the drawer, but by another person, this is not relevant to the defence whether cheque was issued towards payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability.”

The Court rejected the petitioner's claims, stating that the presumption remained valid, and the accused failed to provide sufficient evidence to challenge it.

The Court upheld the lower courts' findings, noting that they were based on a proper appreciation of the evidence and compliance with statutory requirements.

The revision petition was dismissed.

Cause Title: Vibin Meleppuram v. Denny Thomas & Anr., [2023:KER:77582]

Click here to read/download Order