2016 (4) AKR 99 ::(2017) 1 RecCivR 593 ::(2017) 1 RecCriR 469 ::(2016) 4 AllCriLR 697 ::(2016) 4 ICC 648

Karnataka High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): K. N. Phaneendra , J

(A) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881) S. 138 — Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S 73 — Dishonour of cheque — Verification of signature on cheque by Court — On positive denial by signatory of cheque and where signature on disputed document is vague making it difficult to compare, Court shall not decide matter on solely comparing documents by itself — In case Court constrained to take up such comparison, through study to be made and findings needed to be recorded for reaching its conclusion — Though opinion of expert is not binding on Court, Court itself cannot take up role of handwriting experts to compare signatures as per S 73, except as last resort (Paras 21, 22, 24)

(B) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881) S. 138 — Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S 73 — Dishonour of cheque — Verification of signature — Findings recorded by subordinate Court without considering differences between admitted and disputed signature only by casual glancing — Verification of signatures needed to be done by ascertaining characteristics of signature that differentiate both admitted and disputed signature — On careful scrutiny only inference can be drawn by Court in absence of expert opinion — Findings recorded by subordinate Court not sustainable (Paras 27, 29)

(C) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881) S. 138 — Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S 45 — Dishonour of cheque — Non-consideration of expert opinion — Evidence adduced by parties must be convincing and conclusive showing admission of accused regarding his signature on disputed document — It must also be established that accused person is opting delaying tactics to protract proceedings and his evidence is very casual and baseless — Inference with regard to conclusiveness of signature can be drawn by Court without resorting to opinion of expert

(D) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881) S. 138 — Evidence Act (1 of 1872), Ss 45 and 73 — Dishonour of cheque — Non-appreciation of evidence — Opportunity to defend — Accused placed sufficient evidence in record to doubt signature on cheque — Such doubt has been expressed throughout proceedings by accused and proper action by filing complaint also taken by accused at his risk — Lower courts ought to have appreciated material on record and called for expert opinion on same under S 45 — Denial for calling in expert opinion violated principles of natural justice as accused not given fullest opportunity to defend himself — Conviction of accused, set aside (Paras 38, 39, 40)