During the course of trial, the appellant preferred an application dated 13 June, 2019 before learned trial Court with a prayer to send the cheque to the handwriting expert for comparison of the handwriting as well as signature appearing thereon with a plea that his signatures had been forged on the cheque in question. The learned trial Court rejected the application vide order dated 13 June, 2019 itself observing that the application was aimed at delaying the trial.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/quashing-of-conviction-under-section-31xi-of-sc-st-act/
Such application preferred by the appellant was rejected by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar vide detailed order dated 25 July, 2023, which was carried by the appellant to the High Court by filing the captioned Criminal Misc.
Furthermore, as per the cheque return memo of the Bank dated 26 February, 2018, the reason for the cheque being returned unpaid is clearly recorded as “funds insufficient and account dormant”.
Presumptions as to negotiable instruments.—Until
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/medical-negligence-and-compensation-a-landmark-decision/
the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made: ( a ) of consideration : that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration; ( b ) as to date : that every negotiable instrument bearing a date was made or drawn on such date; ( c ) as to time of acceptance : that every accepted bill of exchange was accepted within a reasonable time after its date and before its maturity; ( d ) as to time of transfer : that every transfer of a negotiable instrument was made before its maturity; ( e ) as to order of indorsements : that the indorsements appearing upon a negotiable instrument were made in the order in which they appear thereon; ( f ) as to stamps : that a lost promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque was duly stamped; Criminal Appeal@SLP(Crl.) No(s).
Thus, the presumption of the indorsements on the cheque being genuine operates in favour of the holder in due course of the cheque in question which would be the complainant herein.
Thus, we are of the view that if at all, the appellant was desirous of proving that the signatures as appearing on the cheque issued from his account were not genuine, then he could have procured a certified copy of his specimen signatures from the Bank and a request could have been made to summon the concerned Bank official in defence for giving evidence regarding the genuineness or otherwise of the signature on the cheque.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/remand-of-writ-petition-for-restoration-and-decision-on-merits/
So far as the allegation of the accused appellant that he did not receive the notice under Section 138 of the NI Act is concerned, it would be for the appellate Court while deciding the appeal to examine such issue based on the evidence available on record and thus, there was no requirement for the appellate Court to have exercised power under Section 391 CrPC for summoning the official from the Post Office and had rightly rejected the application under Section 391 CrPC. GAVAI)
Case Title: AJITSINH CHEHUJI RATHOD Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT (2024 INSC 63)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000478-000478 / 2024
