HC: Cheque validly drawn if signature on it not disputed

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, August 25

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that a cheque is to be taken as validly drawn, if the signature on it is not disputed. The fact that the body of the cheque was not filled by an accused was no defence.

The ruling by Justice Rajbir Sehrawat came in a cheque bounce case. The accused claimed that he had not “drawn the cheque” and he had not filled the cheque. His counsel argued that the drawing of a cheque meant drawer himself completed all its parts.

Justice Sehrawat asserted it was nowhere provided under any law that a cheque would be a valid instrument only if all its parts were filled by the drawer or the holder of the account himself or in his own handwriting. “The petitioner could have, very well, got it filled from anybody of his choice.”

Justice Sehrawat further asserted the fact that the body of the cheque might have been in handwriting different from the petitioner’s signatures was totally irrelevant for the purpose of cheque bounce offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. For proving offence under Section 138, the complainant was not required by law to prove that body of the cheque was filled by the accused himself or even with his consent.

Elaborating, Justice Sehrawat added the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act spoke only about the signatures of the drawer on the cheque/bill of exchange. The fact that the body of the cheque was filled in handwriting other than that of the drawer was not a proof that the drawer’s consent was missing.

“If this is permitted, the drawer can frustrate the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act in virtually every case. He can get the cheque prepared as per his choice from some other person and can, subsequently, start pleading that he had not filled the body of the cheque or that he had not consented to the filling of the body of the cheque. In such a situation, the payee or the holder in due course would have no means to prove his consent.”

Looking at the legal proposition from another angel, Justice Sehrawat added the cheque, otherwise also, was not a document requiring attestation by witnesses for being a valid document. As such, the complainant was not under legal obligation to examine a witness to prove its due execution.

“Once the signatures are not disputed, the cheque has to be taken to have been drawn by the drawer himself, however, subject to the other defences which the drawer may be able to take in accordance with law,” Justice Sehrawat concluded.