Scribd
Upload
30 views5 pages

SC Judgement Livelaw

Judgments

Uploaded by

pratiksha98415
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
30 views5 pages

SC Judgement Livelaw

Judgments

Uploaded by

pratiksha98415
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024


[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.3377 of 2019]

K. RAMESH Appellant(s)

VERSUS

K. KOTHANDARAMAN Respondent(s)

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. Notice in the appeal was issued on 15.04.2019. Dasti service, in

addition, was permitted. The learned Registrar has noted by his order

dated 24.07.2019 that service of notice qua the sole respondent is

complete but no one has entered appearance on his behalf. Even as

per the latest Office Report dated 03.01.2024, it is noted that the

respondent was served on 07.05.2019, but there is no representation

on behalf of the respondent. In the circumstances, we have heard

learned counsel for the appellant.

3.
Signature Not Verified The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 23.11.2018 passed
Digitally signed by
Nisha Khulbey
Date: 2024.02.20

by the Madras High Court in Crl. R.C. No.1212 of 2018 by which the
10:56:51 IST
Reason:

1
SLP (CRL) NO.3377/2019

Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Section

401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the order dated

27.08.2018 in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.1456 of 2018 filed

in C.C. No.2767/2018 pending trial before the 20th Metropolitan

Magistrate, Egmore at Allikulam has been set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the latest

judgment of this Court in the case of Bir Singh vs. Mukesh Kumar,

(2019) 4 SCC 197 (‘Bir Singh’) and contended that having regard to

Section 118 read with Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

1881, when once the negotiable instrument has been marked in

evidence, presumption regarding its validity would arise and it is for

the accused to displace the said presumption. That in the instant

case, the respondent had sought to seek a forensic opinion to compare

the contents of the cheque with the signature of the petitioner and the

same was wholly unnecessary having regard to the judgment of this

Court.

5. In this regard our attention was drawn to paragraphs 32, 33, 34

and 36 of the judgment in Bir Singh, wherein it has been observed

that even if a blank cheque leaf is voluntarily signed and handed over

by the accused towards some payment would attract the presumption

2
SLP (CRL) NO.3377/2019

under Section 139 of the Act and in the absence of any cogent

evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of the

debt, the presumption would hold good. The said paragraphs are

extracted below:

“32. The proposition of law which emerges from the


judgments referred to above is that the onus to rebut the
presumption under Section 139 that the cheque has been
issued in discharge of a debt or liability is on the accused
and the fact that the cheque might be post-dated does not
absolve the drawer of a cheque of the penal consequences of
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

33. A meaningful reading of the provisions of the Negotiable


Instruments Act including, in particular, Sections 20, 87 and
139, makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque
and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he
adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque
had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a
liability. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled
in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly
signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the
penal provisions of Section 138 would be attracted.

34. If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a


payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up the
amount and other particulars. This in itself would not
invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the accused
to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or
liability by adducing evidence.

36. Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and


handed over by the accused, which is towards some
payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent
evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in
discharge of a debt.”

3
SLP (CRL) NO.3377/2019

6. It is not in dispute that in the instant case, the accused has

signed the cheque. The only dispute is with regard to the age of the

ink used in making the signature on the cheque and the age of the

signature and contents of the cheque.

7. We find that the application filed by the accused before the trial

Court was wholly frivolous and that the trial Court had rightly rejected

the said application. But in our view, the High Court ought not to have

allowed the said application and thereby allowed the revision petition

of the respondent-accused.

8. In the circumstances, we place reliance on the aforesaid

judgment of this Court and allow this appeal and thereby set aside the

impugned order. Consequently, the learned Magistrate Court is

directed to dispose of the case in accordance with law and as

expeditiously as possible.

The appeal is allowed the aforesaid terms.

…………………..…………………J.
[B.V. NAGARATHNA]

…………………..…………………J.
[AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH]

New Delhi.
February 09, 2024

4
SLP (CRL) NO.3377/2019

ITEM NO.69 COURT NO.12 SECTION II-C

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3377/2019

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23-11-2018


in CRLRC No. 1212/2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Madras)

K RAMESH Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

K. KOTHANDARAMAN Respondent(s)

Date : 09-02-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

For Petitioner(s) Mr. V. Puneedhan, Adv.


Mr. Selvam P, Adv.
Mr. Sameer Aslam, Adv.
Mr. S. Gowthaman, AOR

For Respondent(s)

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following


O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(KRITIKA TIWARI) (MALEKAR NAGARAJ)


SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed order is placed on file)

You might also like