AJITSINH CHEHUJI RATHOD versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

Citation: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1083 · Decided: 29-01-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1083 : 2024 INSC 63
Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod 
v. 
State of Gujarat & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 478 of 2024)
29 January 2024
[B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Appellant-accused convicted u/s.138, Negotiable Instruments 
Act, 1881, had claimed mismatch of signatures on the cheque 
in question. His application for comparison of the signature as 
appearing on the cheque through the handwriting expert was 
rejected by trial court. High Court whether justified in dismissing 
the application filed by the appellant u/s.391, CrPC for taking 
additional evidence at appellate stage and seeking a direction to 
obtain the opinion of the handwriting expert.
Headnotes
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.118, 138 – Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.391 – Presumptions under the 
NI Act though rebuttable, operate in favour of the complainant 
– Accused to rebut such presumptions by leading evidence 
– Cheque dishonoured – Appellant convicted for offence 
punishable u/s.138 – Claiming mismatch of signatures, 
during the trial, the appellant had filed application seeking 
comparison of the signature as appearing on the cheque 
through the handwriting expert – Rejected by trial court – 
Order not challenged – At appellate stage, the appellant filed 
application u/s.391, CrPC for taking additional evidence and 
seeking a direction to obtain the opinion of the handwriting 
expert – Dismissed:
Held: s.118 sub-clause (e) provides a clear presumption regarding 
indorsements made on the negotiable instrument being in order 
in which they appear thereupon – 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 – If the accused intends to rebut 
such presumption, he would be required to lead evidence to this 
effect – Certified copy of a document issued by a Bank is itself 
1084
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
admissible under the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 without 
any formal proof thereof – Hence, in an appropriate case, the 
certified copy of the specimen signature maintained by the Bank 
can be procured with a request to the Court to compare the same 
with the signature appearing on the cheque by exercising powers 
u/s.73, Evidence Act, 1872 – However, in the present case, 
despite having opportunity, the appellant did not put any question 
to the bank official examined in defence for establishing his plea 
of purported mismatch of signature on the cheque in question – 
Hence, the appellate Court was not required to come to the aid 
and assistance of the appellant for collecting defence evidence at 
his behest – Power to record additional evidence u/s.391, CrPC 
should only be exercised when the party making such request 
was prevented from presenting the evidence in the trial despite 
due diligence or the facts giving rise to such prayer came to light 
at a later stage during pendency of the appeal and non-recording 
of such evidence may lead to failure of justice – Furthermore, the 
appellant also did not challenge the trial court’s order rejecting 
his application for comparison of the signature as appearing on 
the cheque through the handwriting expert and thus, had attained 
finality – Impugned orders do not warrant interference. [Paras 14, 
15, 17, 9, 18 and 20] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.391 – Power to record 
additional evidence – Exercise of – Discussed. [Para 9]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.391 – Negotiable 
Instruments Act, 1881 – s.138 – Appellant-accused alleged 
that he did not receive the notice u/s.138 of the NI Act and 
the concerned officer from the Post Office be summoned to 
prove the same:
Held: It would be for the appellate Court while deciding the appeal 
to examine such issue based on the evidence available on record 
– Thus, there was no requirement for the appellate Court to have 
exercised power u/s.391, CrPC for summoning the official from the 
Post Office and it rightly rejected the application u/s.391, CrPC. 
[Para 19]
List of Acts
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Code of Criminal Procedure, 
1973;  Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891; Evidence Act, 1872.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
1085
Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
List of Keywords
Cheque dishonour; Presumptions under Negotiable Instruments 
Act; Rebuttable; Indorsements made on negotiable instrument; 
Holder in due course; Mi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.