Madras HC Rejects Cheque-Case Accused’s Bid To Summon Postmaster Over Notice Service, Noting Acknowledgment Cards Bore His Signature

The petitioner was the accused in two complaints under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, concerning six dishonoured cheques.

The complainant alleged that statutory notices were served on the petitioner, who neither replied nor paid the cheque amounts.

During cross-examination, the petitioner disputed receipt of the notices and suggested that the signatures on the postal acknowledgment cards were not his; he also questioned the complainant’s financial capacity.

He applied under Sections 348 and 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to summon the Post Master and an Axis Bank Branch Manager as defence witnesses and to obtain postal-service records.

The Magistrate dismissed the applications, and the petitioner challenged those orders under Section 528 BNSS.

Section 94 BNSS provides for an order to produce a document or other thing, while Section 348 BNSS concerns the Court’s power to summon a material witness or examine a person present. Section 528 BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent powers.

Under Section 72 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, a Court may compare a disputed signature with an admitted or proved signature.

Relying on Gopal Pathak v. Nitin @ Pappu, 2026 INSC 1085, the Court stated that expert evidence is not essential in every signature dispute and that the Court may compare signatures itself, while retaining discretion to seek expert opinion where appropriate.

The respondent also relied on C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed, 2007 Crl.L.J. 3214, concerning deemed service and the statutory presumptions arising from postal service.

The Court upheld the refusal to order production of documents under Section 94 BNSS because the petitioner had not shown that he had first sought the records from the Bank or Post Office and been refused, and the applications were made after a lapse of seven years.

As to the postal-service dispute, the Court noted that the applications’ supporting affidavit sought to establish whether the articles had been served or returned, while the original acknowledgment cards, bearing the petitioner’s signatures and the Post Office seal, were already before the trial Court.

The trial Court could compare the disputed signatures under Section 72 BSA; accordingly, summoning the Post Master or obtaining further postal records would serve no useful purpose.

The Court found no basis to interfere with the orders under its inherent jurisdiction.

The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.