If an accused in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act alleges that the signature on the cheque is forged, the burden lies on the accused to prove the forgery of signature.
In Prameela Varghese v. Abraham Samuel [2026:KER:57049], the Kerala High Court held that when the cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds rather than a signature mismatch, the plea that the signature is forged cannot ordinarily be accepted.
Presumptions Favour the Complainant
What the complainant must initially prove is that the cheque was drawn by the accused, presented to the bank, and dishonoured for a valid reason, and that statutory notice was served. Under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act, the court presumes that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt or liability.
Accused Must Prove the Signature Is Forged When That Plea Is Raised
When the accused claims that the signature does not belong to him or is forged, the statutory presumption of genuineness continues to apply until the accused disproves it.
The accused must lead probable and credible evidence to substantiate the forgery claim. This is done by summoning bank officials, obtaining certified copies of specimen signatures from the bank, or presenting expert handwriting analysis.
