Signature of drawers not matching specimen signature, whether would amount to dishonor of Cheque ?

                                                  Image Sources: www.forensicdocument.com

The Hon’ble Supreme Court explained in 2012 (6) CTC 690 Laxmi Dyechem Vs State of Gujarat & Ors Any change in signature brought about with a view of prevent Cheque being honoured would amount to dishounour and would become an offence under provision – Change in Authorised Signatory of a Company, Firm, etc. would not automatically amount to dishonor of Cheque and become punishable, unless drawer despite notice and despite opportunity to make payment does not pay amount in time stipulated under Act – In instant case, offer made by defaulting Company to issue new Cheques upon settlement of accounts, held, a conditional offer and would not render illegal an otherwise lawful prosecution – Moreover, Cheques issued by authorized persons of Company would lead to presumption that Cheque were meant to discharger lawful debt or liability – In absence of any proof to rebut presumption that Cheques were issued for discharge of lawful debt or liability, Section 139 would not come to rescue of accused – Allegations of fraud, to be left to decision of Trial Court and not be investigated by Court under Section 482 of Code – Order of High Court quashing Criminal proceedings against Signatories of Cheques, set aside – Trial Court direct4ed to proceed with trial of Complaints – Appeal allowed. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 139 – Presumption under provision – Prosecution can fail if Accused establishes probable defence sufficient enough to create doubt about existence of legally enforceable debt or liability – Said defence to be raised by relying upon materials submitted by Complainant or in some case accused may lead evidence on his own – Presumption can be discharged even at threshold where Magistrate examines case at stage of taking cognizance as to whether prima facie case has been made out against drawer of Cheque – However, if defence is not raised, presumption under provision not being rebutted, would operate with regard to materials submitted by Complainant. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Sections 138 & 139 – Stop Payment cases – Harmonious construction of Sections 138 & 139 to be adopted in matters arising out of “Stop Payment’ – ‘Stop Payment’ instruction when given to Bank would constitute an offence under Section 138, however, subject to Section 139 – Where Stop Payment contingency arises for bona fide reasons, Section 138 would not apply as it applies in conjugation with Section 139 which envisages right of rebuttal before making out of offence – Stop Payment Cheques, thus, a category subject to rebuttal and would be an offence only if drawer of Cheque fails to discharge burden of rebuttal.( complied by Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy)