2017 (7) TMI 1251 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - Signature of revisionist - affirmative evidence or not - Held that - The opinion of the handwriting expert is not the conclusive proof. The cheques were returned by the bank with the remarks insufficient funds and not with the remarks that the signatures of the accused-revisionist do not tally with his standard signatures given in the bank. The cheques admittedly belong to the accused-revisionist. The learned counsel for the revisionists contends that the cheque book of the company was stolen by the Muneem of the company regarding the same. However no DDR or FIR was lodged with the police. Revision dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing revision, Conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Evidence of handwriting expert, Theft of cheque book

Delay in filing revision:
The judgment addresses a delay of 29 days in filing the revision, which is condoned by the court based on reasons mentioned in the application. The application regarding the delay is disposed of, allowing the revision to proceed.

Conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act:
The main case involves a revision against a judgment affirming the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The revisionists were convicted for borrowing a sum of money and issuing cheques that were returned by the bank due to insufficient funds. The lower court found the offence proved, leading to the conviction and sentence, which was upheld in appeal. The court considered arguments regarding the handwriting expert's opinion and the theft of the cheque book but concluded that the evidence of insufficient funds on the cheques was significant, dismissing the revision.

Evidence of handwriting expert:
The revisionists argued that the handwriting expert's opinion should be conclusive proof as the signatures on the cheques differed from the standard signatures of one of the revisionists. However, the court held that the bank's return of the cheques due to insufficient funds was crucial evidence, and the fact that the cheques belonged to the accused revisionist was established. The absence of affirmative evidence from the complainant regarding the handwriting did not alter this conclusion.

Theft of cheque book:
The revisionists claimed that the cheque book was stolen by an employee, but no formal complaint was lodged with the police. Despite this assertion, the court found no grounds to interfere with the lower courts' findings, as the evidence of the cheques being returned with insufficient funds and belonging to the accused revisionist remained strong. Consequently, the court dismissed the revision based on these findings.