RAJENDRA PRASAD Vs. M SHIVARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent-accused issued cheque Ex. P-1 for Rs. 60,000 towards payment of debt liability. Ex. P-1 is dishonoured on its presentation. Statutory notice is issued and a private complaint is filed. Per contra, the accused contends that he has not borrowed any loan and he has not issued the cheque Ex. P-1 to the complainant. The signature of Ex. P-1 is disputed.

(2.) THE loan of Rs. 60,000/- was paid by pw1 to the accused on 10-11 -96 in the presence of one Vijaykumar Reddy. PW-3 in his evidence states that a loose cheque Ex. P-1 was issued to the accused on 7-12-95. Except the signature of the accused on the cheque, the rest of the contents are not in his hand and the ink is different. The Court finds that there is discrepancy between the evidence of PW-2 and PW-1 with regard to payment of Rs. 60,000/- and issuance of cheque. In view of the said reason, the Court acquitted the accused holding that the existence of the debt liability is not established.

(3.) PW-3 no doubt makes a statement that the loose cheque leaf has been issued to the accused on 7-12-95. But in the cross examination, admits that he was not Manager who has issued the cheque leaf. He was giving evidence without the aid of records of the bank to say that the cheque leaf is issued on 7-12-95. Therefore, the version of pw-3 that the cheque leaf was issued on 7-12-95 is not convincingly established. Even assuming it to be true, it is not explained by the accused as to how the cheque issued to him came into possession of the complainant. With regard to the signature on Ex. P-1, the Court takes upon itself the scrutiny of the signature by naked perusal without any experts opinion in that behalf. The Court is a final arbitrator to express opinion in the matter of disputed hand writings but while expressing the opinion, it is necessary that the Court should be assisted by experts opinion or any other strong circumstances to prove that the execution of the document. In the instant case, the Court has done a dangerous exercise of naked comparison of the signatures of the accused on the cheque with the other admitted signatures and comes to the conclusion that the signature on the cheque does not appear to be the signature of the accused.