"Punjab and Haryana High Court Dismisses Revision Petition: 'Signature Dispute Clearly an Afterthought,' says Judge"

In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a revision petition filed by Vivek, the accused, seeking permission to present additional evidence involving a dishonored cheque. Justice Suvir Sehgal ruled that the petitioner's claims of a mismatched signature on the dishonored cheque were "clearly an afterthought."

The accused had been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for issuing a cheque that was dishonored by the bank with remarks "Account Closed." Vivek petitioned for an additional evidence application under Section 391 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) to examine a handwriting and fingerprint expert. The appellate court had earlier declined this application, a decision which was the subject of this revision petition.

Reacting to the petitioner’s contentions, Justice Suvir Sehgal said, "It cannot be disputed that the cheque has been dishonored by the bank on account of the fact that the bank account of the drawer had been closed and not on account of the difference in signature of the drawer." He added, "The stand of disputed signature being taken by the petitioner is clearly an afterthought."

The judgment also referred to various case laws, stating that the provision to lead additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C. should not be used to "remedy the negligence or latches of a party." The Court opined, "Where there was ample opportunity for a party to adduce evidence... it is not desirable to exercise power under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to enable the petitioner to fill in the lacunae."

This judgment is expected to serve as a precedent in similar cases involving dishonored cheques and contested signatures, underlining the importance of timely and proper presentation of evidence.

Decided on: 28.08.2023

Vivek vs Krishan Kumar