ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCEversusPRABODH KUMAR TEWARI

72                      [2022]
              SUPREME COURT    7 S.C.R. 72
                             REPORTS                      [2022] 7 S.C.R.


A                  ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE
                                      v.
                       PRABODH KUMAR TEWARI
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 1260 of 2022)
B                            AUGUST 16, 2022
             [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
                      A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
           Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 – ss. 138, 139 – Engagement
     of hand-writing expert to determine the details filled in the cheque
C
     – The respondent admits that he signed a blank cheque and handed
     over to the appellant – The High Court permitted the respondent to
     engage a hand-writing expert to determine whether the details that
     were filled in the cheque were in the handwriting of the respondent
     – Held: A drawer who signs a cheque and hands it over to the
D    payee, is presumed to be liable unless the drawer adduces evidence
     to rebut the presumption that the cheque has been issued towards
     payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability – The presumption
     arises u/s. 139 – The evidence of a hand-writing expert on whether
     the respondent had filled in the details in the cheque would be
     immaterial to determining the purpose for which the cheque was
E
     handed over – Therefore, no purpose is served by allowing the
     application for adducing the evidence of the hand-writing expert.
           Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197 : [2019]
           2 SCR 24; Rangappa v. Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441
           : [2010] 6 SCR 507 – relied on.
F
           Kalamani Tex v. P. Balasubramanian (2021) 5 SCC 283
           : 2021 (2) JT 519; Anss Rajashekar v. Augustus Jeba
           Ananth (2020) 15 SCC 348 : [2019] 1 SCR 731 –
           referred to.
G                          Case Law Reference
     [2019] 2 SCR 24               relied on           Para 14
     [2019] 1 SCR 731              referred to         Para 16
     [2010] 6 SCR 507              relied on           Para 16
H
                                     72
     ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE v. PRABODH KUMAR                              73
                        TEWARI

      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.                   A
1260 of 2022.
      From the Judgment and Orders dated 24.07.2019 of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. M.C. No. 1792 of 2019.
       Ambar Qamaruddin, Tejasvi Kumar, Syed Sarfaraz Karim, Advs.
for the Appellant.                                                           B

         Madhav Khurana, Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Advs. for the Respondent.
         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
         DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
                                                                             C
         1. Leave granted.
      2. This appeal arises from a judgment dated 24 July 2019 of a
Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi.
       3. The appellant is the complainant in proceedings under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 18811. He seeks to question the        D
order of a Single Judge by which the respondents were permitted to
engage a hand-writing expert to seek an opinion on whether “the
authorship on the questioned writings” (the disputed cheque) can be
attributed to the respondents.
        4. The respondent admits that he signed and handed over a cheque     E
to the appellant. According to the respondent a signed blank cheque
was handed over by him. The question which arises in the appeal is
whether the High Court was correct in permitting the respondent to
engage a hand-writing expert to determine whether the details that were
filled in the cheque were in the hand of the respondent. For the reasons
set out below, we have allowed this appeal against the order of the High     F
Court for the reason that Section 139 of the NI Act raises a presumption
that a drawer handing over a cheque signed by him is liable unless it is
proved by adducing evidence at the trial that the cheque was not in
discharge of a debt or liability. The evidence of a hand-writing expert on
whether the respondent had filled in the details in the cheque would be      G
immaterial to determining the purpose for which the cheque was handed
over. Therefore, no purpose is served by allowing the application for
adducing the evidence of the hand-writing expert.

1
    “NI Act”                                                                 H
74                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 7 S.C.R.


A            5. The appellant is a body corporate constituted under the
     Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act
     1980. According to the appellant, a consortium of five companies, namely,
     (i) Century Communications Ltd, (ii) Pixion Media Pvt Ltd, (iii) Pearl
     Studios Pvt Ltd, (iv) Pixion Vision Pvt Ltd and (v) Pearl Vision Pvt Ltd
     availed of credit facilities from the appellant. The total outstanding dues
B
     of the consortium are alleged to be in excess of Rs 1200 crores as on the
     date of the institution of these proceedings. It has been alleged that the
     first respondent (A-2 before the Trial Court) handed over a cheque -
     bearing number 387172 dated 26 December 2011 from the account of
     Century Communications Ltd in the amount of Rs 5.57 crores drawn on
C    Indian Overseas Bank, Defense Colony Branch, New Delhi - towards
     the dues of the above five companies. According to the appellant, this
     was accompanied by a letter of the same date, bearing reference number
     CCL/OBC/036/2011, with a request to present the cheque at the end of
     the second week of January. The cheque was presented for encashment,
     but was returned on 25 May 2012 with the remarks “insufficient funds”.
D
            6. After issuing a legal notice on 5 June 2012, the appellant instituted
     a criminal complaint, being CC No 3065 of 2012, before the Court of the
     Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi
     for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. Notices
     were framed against the first and second respondent under Section 251
E    of the Code of Criminal Procedure 19732.
             7. During the course of the trial, on 12 February 2018, the
     Metropolitan Magistrate recorded the statements of the first and second
     respondents under Section 313 CrPC. The first respondent has stated
     that he is a director in all the five companies; he was an authorized
F    signatory; and a blank signed cheque was given by him towards security.
     Therefore, there is no dispute that the cheque bears the signature of the
     first respondent.
            8. The first and second respondents filed an application before
     the Trial Judge seeking to have the cheque in question, the specimen
G    signature and handwriting of the first respondent examined by a
     government hand-writing expert. The application was dismissed by the
     Trial Judge on 21 February 2019.


     2
H        “CrPC”
     ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE v. PRABODH KUMAR                                   75
       TEWARI [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

       9. The first and second respondents appealed to the High Court.            A
The High Court by the impugned order dated 24 July 2019 held that
there was no occasion to allow the examination of a government hand-
writing expert. However, the Single Judge nonetheless allowed the petition
filed by the respondents to the extent that they have been permitted to
engage a hand-writing expert for the purpose of examining the disputed
                                                                                  B
‘writings’.
     10. We have heard Mr Amar Qamaruddin, counsel for the appellant
and Mr Madhav Khuran, counsel for the respondents.
        11. During the course of the hearing, it is not in dispute that the
first respondent has admitted to having signed the cheque.                        C
       12. The submission which has been urged on behalf of the
appellant is that even assuming, as the first respondent submits, that the
details in the cheque were not filled in by the drawer, this would not make
any difference to the liability of the drawer.
         13. Section 139 of the NI Act states:                                    D
         139. Presumption in favour of holder. - It shall be presumed,
         unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received
         the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge,
         in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.
                                                                                  E
       14. In Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar,3 after discussing the settled
line of precedent of this Court on this issue, a two-Judge Bench held:
         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
                                                                                  F
         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       G
         would be attracted.
         34. If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a
         payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up the

3
    (2019) 4 SCC 197                                                              H
76             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 7 S.C.R.


A           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.
            […]
B           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.
C                                                      (emphasis supplied)
            The above view was recently reiterated by a three-Judge Bench
     of this Court in Kalamani Tex v. P. Balasubramanian.4
            15. A drawer who signs a cheque and hands it over to the payee,
D    is presumed to be liable unless the drawer adduces evidence to rebut
     the presumption that the cheque has been issued towards payment of a
     debt or in discharge of a liability. The presumption arises under Section
     139.
            16. In Anss Rajashekar v. Augustus Jeba Ananth,5 a two Judge
     Bench of this Court, of which one of us (D.Y. Chandrachud J.) was a
E
     part, reiterated the decision of the three-Judge Bench of this Court in
     Rangappa v. Sri Mohan6 on the presumption under Section 139 of the
     NI Act. The court held:
            12. Section 139 of the Act mandates that it shall be presumed,
            unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received
F
            it, in discharge, in whole or in part, of a debt, or liability. The
            expression “unless the contrary is proved” indicates that the
            presumption under Section 139 of the Act is rebuttable. Terming
            this as an example of a “reverse onus clause” the three-Judge
            Bench of this Court in Rangappa held that in determining whether
G           the presumption has been rebutted, the test of proportionality must
            guide the determination. The standard of proof for rebuttal of the
            presumption under Section 139 of the Act is guided by a
            preponderance of probabilities. This Court held thus:
     4
       (2021) 5 SCC 283
     5
       (2020) 15 SCC 348
H    6
       (2010) 11 SCC 441
   ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE v. PRABODH KUMAR                                   77
     TEWARI [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

           “28. In the absence of compelling justifications, reverse onus       A
           clauses usually impose an evidentiary burden and not a
           persuasive burden. Keeping this in view, it is a settled
           position that when an accused has to rebut the
           presumption under Section 139, the standard of proof
           for doing so is that of “preponderance of probabilities”.
                                                                                B
           Therefore, if the accused is able to raise a probable
           defence which creates doubts about the existence of a
           legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can
           fail. As clarified in the citations, the accused can rely on the
           materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise such a
           defence and it is conceivable that in some cases the accused         C
           may not need to adduce evidence of his/her own.”
                                                     (emphasis supplied)
       17. For such a determination, the fact that the details in the cheque
have been filled up not by the drawer, but by some other person would
be immaterial. The presumption which arises on the signing of the cheque        D
cannot be rebutted merely by the report of a hand-writing expert. Even
if the details in the cheque have not been filled up by drawer but by
another person, this is not relevant to the defense whether cheque was
issued towards payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability.
       18. Undoubtedly, it would be open to the respondents to raise all
                                                                                E
other defenses which they may legitimately be entitled to otherwise
raise in support of their plea that the cheque was not issued in pursuance
of a pre-existing debt or outstanding liability.
       19. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed and the impugned
order of the Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dated 24 July 2019 is
set aside. The report which has been received in pursuance of the               F
impugned order dated 24 July 2019 shall not be taken into consideration
during the course of trial.
       20. The application filed by the respondent for the examination
of a hand-writing expert shall in the circumstances stand dismissed.
The present order shall not affect the merits of the trial or the rights and    G
contentions of the respective parties during the course of the trial.
       21. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Ankit Gyan                                                    Appeal allowed.
(Assisted by : Rahul Rathi, LCRA)                                               H