ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE versus PRABODH KUMAR TEWARI

Citation: [2022] 7 S.C.R. 72 · Decided: 16-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
72
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE
v.
PRABODH KUMAR TEWARI
(Criminal Appeal No. 1260 of 2022)
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
– 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
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
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.
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.
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
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 72
72
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
73
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
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.
Madhav Khurana, Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
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
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
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
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
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”
ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE v. PRABODH KUMAR
TEWARI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
74
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
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
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
Indian Overseas Bank, Defense Colony Br
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.