TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 544X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , therefore, was of the view that the appellant/complainant was entitled to the benefit of the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and therefore found that Ext.P2 cheque had been issued for discharge of a legally enforceable debt and answered that issue in favour of the appellant/complainant - A reading of the appellate court judgment shows that the appellate court was of the opinion that the signature on the cheque had not been proved to be that of the 2nd respondent/accused herein. In particular, the appellate court noticed that the signatures on Ext.D1, the account opening form and Ext.X1 containing the registration particulars of the vehicle were different from the signature contained in Ext.P2 cheque. This is a case where the 2nd respondent/accused has not denied the fact that he had entered into a hire purchase agreement with the appellant/complainant. He had also not denied the fact that he had failed to repay the instalments of the loan in time - The trial court on an examination of the signatures on various documents concluded that there was a similarity in the admitted signature and the signature contained in the cheque. Of course, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xt.P8) has not been denied by the 2nd respondent/accused. ii) The fact that only one instalment had been repaid by the 2nd respondent/accused, is also not denied. 4. Though the accused had filed an application for sending Ext.P2 cheque to the forensic expert for verifying the signature and handwriting and though that application was allowed by the court, the forensic laboratory had returned the same without comparison and demanding more documents written by the 2nd respondent/ accused during the same period in order to complete the investigation. However, the 2nd respondent/accused did not produce any further document, as a result of which Ext.P2 cheque was not subjected to any forensic examination. Though there was some difference in the signature shown in Ext.D1 (account opening form) and the signature of the 2nd respondent/accused in Ext.P2 cheque and though the signature in documents relating to the registration particulars of the vehicle (marked as Ext.X1), is not identical to the one contained in Ext.P2 cheque, the trial court found similarity in the signatures contained in the said public documents, in Ext.P8 hire purchase agreement and in Ext.P2 cheque. The trial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vidence Act, the court reached the conclusion that on a comparison of the signatures in Ext.P2 cheque, Ext.P8 hire purchase agreement, Ext.X1(a) extract of the registration particulars of the vehicle purchased with the hire purchase loan, the signatures on the postal acknowledgment card (Ext.P6), Ext.D1 account opening form, vakalath of the 2nd respondent/accused and in the statement recorded by the trial court under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the name of the 2nd respondent/accused is decipherable from the signatures in Exts.P2, P8 and X1(a), whereas in other documents, the signature is only a cluster of bent lines scribbled with English alphabets 'O.J' beneath it. On that assumption, the appellate court proceeded to find that the signature on Ext.P2 cheque has not been established by the appellant/complainant. 8. This is a case where the 2nd respondent/accused has not denied the fact that he had entered into a hire purchase agreement with the appellant/complainant. He had also not denied the fact that he had failed to repay the instalments of the loan in time. I must also take note of the fact that though the 2nd respondent/accused had initially filed an application for sendin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the signatures on the cheque were not those of the original appellant. 5. The complainant filed an appeal to the High Court, which after considering the entire evidence, has delivered a well reasoned judgment upsetting the judgment of the Trial Court. The reasons which weighed with the High Court were that; (1) the original appellant did not step into the witness box to state that he had not signed the cheque; (2) that the opinion of the handwriting expert was only an opinion and not conclusive; (3) that the original appellant had failed to prove that he had sent a reply to the notice sent to him by the complainant because so - called reply was not marked in evidence and no postal receipt of the same was placed on record. 6. It is urged before us that the High Court over - stepped the limits which Appellate Court is bound by criminal cases setting aside an order of acquittal. Proceedings under S.138 of the Act are quasi - criminal proceedings. The principles, which apply to acquittal in other criminal cases, cannot apply to these cases. As far as the present case is concerned, in addition to three reasons, given by the High Court, we are of the view that the origi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
