S.138 NI Act | Trial Court Can Compare Disputed Signatures On Postal Acknowledgment Under Section 72 BSA; Summoning Post Master Unnecessary: Madras High Court

"The mere fact that the petitioner disputes the signature does not, by itself, necessitate reference to an expert. The trial Court has the discretion to compare the signatures on its own under Section 72 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023." Madras High Court has held that in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a trial court is fully empowered under Section 72 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) to compare disputed signatures on postal acknowledgment cards on its own, rendering the summoning of postal authorities or expert witnesses unnecessary.

Justice R. Vijayakumar, in an order pronounced on November 10, 2026, affirmed the dismissal of an accused's applications under Sections 94 and 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) to summon postal and bank officials, observing that courts cannot permit prolonged delay in cheque dishonour trials that have already spanned several years.

The petitioner faced prosecution under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act across two calendar cases instituted in 2019, involving six dishonoured cheques amounting to thirty lakh rupees. During cross-examination of the complainant, the petitioner claimed non-receipt of the statutory demand notices, alleging that the signatures on the postal acknowledgment cards did not match those on the impugned cheques. Consequently, after seven years of trial proceedings spanning 128 hearings, the petitioner moved applications under Sections 94 and 348 of the BNSS seeking to summon the Post Master, call for postal delivery records, and examine the Axis Bank Branch Manager. The trial court dismissed all applications, prompting the petitioner to invoke the High Court's inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS.

Whether an accused in a cheque dishonour case can insist on summoning postal officials and delivery records under Sections 94 and 348 of the BNSS solely on the plea that the signature on the postal acknowledgment card differs from the cheques?

Whether the trial court possesses the requisite jurisdiction under Section 72 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 to independently compare disputed signatures without routing the matter to an expert or postal witness?

Section 94 BNSS Cannot Be Invoked Without Establishing Inability To Procure Documents Independently

Scrutinising the petitioner’s plea under Section 94 BNSS to compel production of delivery records from the postal department, the High Court observed that an accused cannot mechanistically invoke court processes to summon official records without establishing prior attempts to secure them independently.

The Court emphasised that the petitioner never demonstrated having approached the bank or the post office for certified copies, nor was there any rejection by the authorities on record.

Furthermore, the High Court noted that the applications were preferred belatedly after seven years of litigation, completely justifying the trial magistrate’s refusal to issue summons for document production.

Affidavit Contradicted Plea Of Forged Acknowledgment Signature

Addressing the petitioner’s contention regarding non-service of the mandatory statutory demand notice under Section 138 of the NI Act, the Court observed an irreconcilable variance between the petitioner’s oral arguments and the supporting affidavit.

The Court highlighted that the affidavit filed under Section 348 of the BNSS did not contain any specific dispute regarding the signature on the acknowledgment card, but merely sought postal records to verify delivery or return.

The bench reiterated that the complainant had already tendered the original acknowledgment cards bearing the petitioner's signature and the postal stamp, attracting statutory presumptions.

Courts Empowered To Compare Disputed Signatures Under Section 72 BSA

Relying on the Supreme Court's authoritative pronouncement in Gopal Pathak v. Nitin @ Pappu (2026 INSC 1085), the High Court underscored that courts are legally equipped under Section 72 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (corresponding to Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872) to independently compare disputed writings or signatures with admitted signatures.

The High Court reiterated the apex court's view that judicial comparison of signatures is an active duty and cannot be avoided under the plea that the court is not a handwriting expert.

Since expert testimony is merely advisory and not binding on the court, summoning the Post Master or seeking external expert verification is not mandatory every time a signature is contested.

The Court held that the trial magistrate held full discretion to inspect and compare the signatures on record, rendering the examination of postal authorities superfluous and dilatory.

The High Court dismissed all the Criminal Original Petitions, holding that the trial court committed no illegality in rejecting the applications under Sections 94 and 348 of the BNSS, and closed all connected miscellaneous petitions.

Date of Decision: November 10, 2026