Signature Admitted, Handwriting on Cheque Body Immaterial to Statutory Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act

The respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner regarding the dishonor of three cheques worth Rs. 1.00 lakh each.

After the defense evidence concluded, the petitioner moved an application before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sumbal, seeking forensic examination of the handwriting on the cheques.

The petitioner claimed he signed the cheques under coercion while in police custody and that a Sub-Inspector filled in the blanks.

The trial court rejected the application on 14.02.2025.

The petitioner challenged this rejection, asserting that forensic examination was necessary for a fair trial.

1. Whether the forensic examination of handwriting on the body of a signed cheque is necessary to rebut the presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. Whether the trial court’s rejection of the application for forensic examination was legally sound.

Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which mandates a presumption in favor of the holder that a cheque was issued for the discharge of a debt or liability.

Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Prabodh Kumar Tewari (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 714), which established that once signatures on a cheque are admitted, it is immaterial who filled in the remaining details.

Under this doctrine, a handwriting expert's report cannot rebut the statutory presumption if the drawer has signed the instrument.

The court reasoned that since the petitioner admitted to signing the cheques, the legal presumption under Section 139 was immediately triggered.

Following the Supreme Court's mandate in Oriental Bank of Commerce, the court held that the identity of the person who filled the "blanks" in the cheque is legally "superfluous".

The petitioner's defense—that the cheques were obtained via coercion in police custody—is a factual plea that must be established through witness testimony and cogent evidence rather than forensic analysis of handwriting.

The court concluded that allowing forensic examination would serve no legal purpose and would only result in an unnecessary delay of the trial.

The court upheld the trial court's order, dismissed the petition for lacking merit, and vacated the interim stay order dated 26.08.2025. The trial magistrate was directed to proceed with the case.