Nisar Vs State of Kerala (High Court of Kerala)
Section 3 of the Evidence Act defines ‘document’ as any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter. Similar definition of ‘document’ is also provided under Section 29 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC“) and Section 3(18) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (“GC Act“). A perusal of Section 29 of IPC shows that the word ‘document’ is meant to denote any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks or by more than one of those means, intended to be used or which may be used, as evidence of that matter Going by the definitions, in order to term a substance as a document, some matter should have been expressed or described on that substance by means of letter, figures or marks and such matter should be intended to be used as evidence of that matter.
Under income tax Section – 292C deals with presumption as to assets, books of account, etc, however no specific definition of documents defined except in section [(22AA) define documents as “document” includes an electronic record as defined in clause (t) 18of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000).
However for the blank signed cheque under Negotiable Instrument Act , the Supreme Court of India in its judgment dated 6th February, 2019 in the matter Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar [Criminal Appeal Nos. 230-231 of 2019 in SLP (Criminal) Nos. 9334-35 of 2018] whilst discussing the object of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act”) has held as under:-
“37. A meaningful reading of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act including in particular, Sections 20, 87 and 139, makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of Section 138 would be attracted.
38. If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence.”
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
