An admitted cheque signature attracts the statutory presumption, which handwriting-expert evidence alone cannot rebut.

The complainant alleged that the petitioner borrowed ₹15 lakh and issued a promissory note and two cheques, each for ₹7.5 lakh; the cheques were returned for insufficient funds.

After the petitioner’s evidence had concluded, he applied to have the documents examined by a handwriting expert and the Forensic Science Laboratory. The Magistrate rejected the application, and the Sessions Court dismissed his revision. He challenged both orders before the High Court.

1. Whether the courts below erred in refusing to send the disputed cheques and promissory note for handwriting-expert and FSL examination.

2. Whether refusal of that examination denied the petitioner a fair opportunity to rebut the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act.

Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act create rebuttable presumptions in favour of the holder of a cheque, including that it was received towards discharge of a debt or liability; the accused may rebut them on a standard of preponderance of probabilities.

Under Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, a signed cheque may attract the statutory presumption even if another person filled in its particulars; the fact that another person completed the cheque does not, by itself, invalidate it.

The Court further relied on Oriental Bank of Commerce, which states that the presumption arising from a signed cheque cannot be rebutted merely by a handwriting-expert report.

The Court found that the petitioner had admitted the signatures on the disputed cheque during his evidence. It also noted that the application was filed more than four months after his evidence concluded, while the prosecution had been pending since 2018.

In light of the admitted signatures and the rule that expert examination of cheque particulars would not, by itself, rebut the statutory presumption, the Court found no basis to interfere with the refusal to refer the cheques for examination. As to the promissory note, it considered that disputing its signature had diminished significance once the signature on the cheque forming the basis of the Section 138 complaint was admitted.

It dismissed the petition, discharged the Rule, and left in place the orders rejecting the request for expert examination.