Court’s Decision:
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh, after considering the arguments and evidence presented, dismissed the petition filed by the accused challenging the Trial Court’s decision to reject two applications. The first application was made under Section 311 Cr.P.C., seeking to recall the complainant for further examination based on new facts. The second application was filed under Section 311A Cr.P.C., requesting the Court to send the disputed cheque for examination by a handwriting expert. The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s order, affirming that the applications were without merit and that the accused had been given adequate opportunities to present his defense.
Facts:
The case arose from a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which pertains to dishonored cheques. The complainant, an agriculturist, had sold apple boxes to the accused for ₹1,20,000/- and received a cheque from him as payment. However, the cheque was dishonored due to insufficient funds. Despite a valid notice of demand being served on the accused, he failed to repay the amount, prompting the complainant to file a criminal complaint for dishonor of the cheque.
During the trial, the accused admitted to signing the cheque but contested the details filled in the cheque. He alleged that the amount was altered by the complainant or her family members, claiming that the cheque was originally issued as a security for ₹20,000/-. As the trial proceeded, the accused filed two applications: one under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall the complainant for re-examination, and another under Section 311A Cr.P.C. to send the cheque for examination by a handwriting expert.
Issues:
The primary legal issue in this case was whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the accused’s applications for recall of the complainant and for sending the cheque for expert analysis. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the accused had a valid reason for seeking re-examination of the complainant and if there were sufficient grounds for handwriting analysis of the cheque.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The accused argued that the cheque was filled out with an altered amount that was not written by him but by the complainant or a third party. He contended that he had issued the cheque as a security for ₹20,000/- and that the amount of ₹1,20,000/- was filled in later. He also argued that he was illiterate and did not fill in the amount himself, which justified the need for a handwriting expert to verify the authenticity of the altered amount. The accused further claimed that this new fact was discovered after the complainant’s testimony, making it necessary for the Court to recall the complainant for further examination and to seek expert opinion on the handwriting.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The complainant opposed the application, arguing that the accused had already admitted to signing the cheque. The complainant contended that there was no need for a handwriting expert because the law allowed the complainant to fill in the details, including the amount, once the cheque was signed. The complainant also highlighted that the applications were filed after the accused had been given multiple opportunities to present his defense. The complainant argued that these applications were merely an attempt to delay the proceedings.
Analysis of the Law:
The Court examined the provisions of Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which creates a legal presumption that a cheque is issued to discharge a liability. Under this section, once the accused signs a cheque, there is a presumption that the cheque was issued for the payment of a debt or liability, unless the accused can rebut this presumption by providing sufficient evidence to the contrary.
The Court also analyzed Section 311 and Section 311A of the Cr.P.C. Section 311 allows a Court to summon or recall witnesses to ensure a fair trial, while Section 311A deals with the process of obtaining expert opinions, including handwriting experts. The Court focused on whether the applications filed by the accused were based on valid grounds, considering the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act.
Precedent Analysis:
The High Court referred to several key judgments to interpret the legal provisions. One such case was Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Prabodh Kumar Tiwari (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1089), where the accused admitted to signing a cheque but sought to challenge the details filled in by someone else. The Supreme Court had reversed the High Court’s decision in that case, ruling that once a cheque is handed over, the presumption arises that the cheque is for the discharge of a liability, regardless of who filled in the amount.
The Court also cited the case of Anss Rajashekar v. Augustus Jeba Ananth (2020), where the Supreme Court reiterated that Section 139 creates a rebuttable presumption that the cheque was issued for a debt or liability. The Court emphasized that once the accused hands over the cheque, it is presumed to be issued for this purpose, and it is the accused’s responsibility to disprove it. The Court made it clear that the standard of proof for rebutting the presumption under Section 139 is that of “preponderance of probabilities.”
Court’s Reasoning:
The Court concluded that the accused’s plea regarding the alteration of the cheque’s amount lacked merit. The Court reasoned that even if the accused’s claim that the amount was filled by the complainant or a third party was accepted, it would not affect the fact that the accused had signed and handed over the cheque. As per the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, once the cheque is signed and handed over, it is presumed to be issued to discharge a debt, and this presumption cannot be rebutted simply by alleging that someone else filled in the amount.
The Court also observed that the accused had admitted to signing the cheque, and therefore, his request for handwriting analysis was unnecessary. The plea that the cheque was filled out by someone else was deemed irrelevant in the face of the signed cheque and the presumption under the law.
Furthermore, the Court found that the report made by the accused to the police regarding the alleged misuse of the cheque was not a new fact. The Court pointed out that the accused had knowledge of the report before filing the application, and thus, it was not a valid reason to recall the complainant or seek further examination.
Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the petition filed by the accused, affirming that there was no error in the Trial Court’s decision. The Court held that the applications were not justified and that the accused had already been afforded ample opportunity to present his defense. The Court concluded that the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act could not be rebutted by simply claiming that the cheque’s details were filled out by someone else, and that a handwriting expert’s opinion was not necessary.
Implications:
This ruling reinforces the legal presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which places the burden on the accused to rebut the presumption that a cheque was issued to discharge a debt. It also highlights the limited circumstances under which a handwriting expert’s opinion can be requested, emphasizing that once a cheque is signed and handed over, the presumption of liability applies, and it is up to the accused to provide concrete evidence to the contrary. The case also clarifies that a police report made by the accused before the application is not a valid reason for re-examining the complainant or reopening the case.
This judgment will have a significant impact on how future cases involving dishonored cheques are handled, particularly regarding the admissibility of handwriting expert opinions and the strength of the presumption under Section 139.
