Accused In A Cheque Bounce Case Can Procure Certified Copies Of Specimen Signatures Maintained By The Bank To Dispute Signatures On The Cheque.

In the proceedings under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Cheque Bounce cases are filed under this law) there is a presumption that the endorsements on the cheque are genuine.

If the case of the accused is that he had never signed the cheque and the accused wishes to dispute the signature on the cheque, he can procure a certified copy of his signature maintained by the bank and make a request to the Court to compare the same with the signature on the cheque by exercising powers under section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The Supreme Court has dealt with the aforesaid / similar issue in the case titled AJITSINH CHEHUJI RATHOD VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. (SLP (Crl.) No(s). 16641 of 2023).

The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment have been reproduced below:

“15. Certified copy of a document issued by a Bank is itself 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 under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

16. Thus, we are of the view that if at all, the appellant was desirous of proving that the signatures as appearing on the cheque issued from his account were not genuine, then he could have procured a certified copy of his specimen signatures from the Bank and a request could have been made to summon the concerned Bank official in defence for giving evidence regarding the genuineness or otherwise of the signature on the cheque.”

The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has also held that the appellate Court while deciding the appeal can examine whether the accused had received the notice under Section 138 of the NI Act based on the evidence available on record and there was no requirement for the appellate Court to have exercised power under Section 391 CrPC for summoning the official from the Post Office.