TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1930
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n it was presented, and though a criminal complaint was filed, the appellant was acquitted. Thus, the suit was filed claiming the principal amount of Rs.2,15,000/- along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum, totalling Rs. 3,31,100/-. 5. The trial court framed issues as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the plaint amount as alleged and whether the defendant has drawn the cheque towards the discharge of the amount as alleged. 6. On behalf of the plaintiff, Ext. A1, the alleged cheque, A2 Dishonour Memo and the post-acknowledgement to lawyer notice A3 were marked. The specimen signature card maintained by the bank was summoned and marked as Exhibit X1. On behalf of the plaintiff, PW1 to PW3 were examined. The defendant relied on Ext. B1 to B4 and examined DW1. 7. The trial court found that the defendant has no case that her husband had forged her signature in Ext.A1 and no circumstance has been brought out in evidence to show that the plaintiff is aware of the signature of the defendant. It is found that the defendant had drawn Ext.A1 cheque in favour of the plaintiff, and there is no case for the defendant that there were sufficient funds in her account to ho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unsel for the respondent, B.S. Swathi Kumar and Sri. Harisankar N. Unni argued that the alleged difference in signatures could not have been considered, as the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and not because the signatures were different, and therefore, a discussion on the comparison of the signatures was unnecessary. Learned counsel also relied on Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He further argued that the acquittal in the prosecution under Section 138 can in no way affect the outcome of the civil suit. It is argued that the nature of evidence required for a successful prosecution of the 138 proceedings, and this case being entirely different, the principles of issue estoppel or cause of action estoppel do not arise. 11. It is further argued that the execution of the cheque is proved by the evidence of PW1 to PW3, and since the signature was admitted, the burden was on the defendant to prove the case set up by her. The plaintiff also had the benefit of presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court had considered the evidence, both oral and documentary and granted a decree, which calls for no interference with this appeal. He ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'s judgment does not become binding on the civil court merely for that reason. 16. It is also to be understood that there is a difference in the standard of proof and an acquittal may merely signify that the complainant failed to establish the offence beyond reasonable doubt; it does not necessarily mean that the defendant has disproved the existence of the debt or liability. The same evidence may still satisfy the lower standard applicable in a civil suit. The reason is that two courts decide the dispute on fundamentally different legal standards. Accordingly, the civil court is required to independently appreciate the evidence, even if it is identical to that adduced before the criminal court. 17. Applying the above principles, this Court is unable to accept the contention of the appellant that her acquittal in the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operates as issue estoppel or otherwise bars the present civil proceedings. The appellant's contention founded on issue estoppel, res judicata or relitigation, therefore, necessarily fails. 18. The next aspect to be considered is the contention regarding the signature in Ext.A1 cheque. The app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s signed but not voluntarily delivered or was stolen, can negate execution unless proven to be voluntarily delivered. If the accused admits signing and issuing but disputes the underlying debt, then execution is not in question, triggering the presumptions which the accused must rebut. 21. Additionally, a plea of coercion or lack of consideration does not constitute a denial of execution. If the accused acknowledges signing or delivering the cheque but argues it was done under duress, the legal validity of the act is challenged rather than its execution. In such instances, the burden shifts to the accused to demonstrate that the cheque was obtained through coercion or is not supported by a valid debt. (See: Rangappa v. Sri Mohan (AIR 2010 SC 1898), Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa [(2019) 5 SCC 418] and Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar (AIR 2019 SC 2446). 22. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, the foundational issue is not merely whether the signature appearing on Ext.A1 is that of the defendant, but whether Ext.A1 was voluntarily executed by her. The defendant has throughout denied the execution of the cheque, and therefore the initial burden squarely rested....