Image credits - ThePrint
The Kerala High Court held in the Tomy T. J. v. State of Kerala case that trial courts have the authority to compare disputed handwriting in situations involving cheque dishonor, marking a significant legal breakthrough. This finding is consistent with Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, as it emphasizes the trial court’s responsibility to authenticate signatures and handwriting.
The case concerned a disagreement over check dishonour in which the signature’s validity was questioned. The petitioner contended that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to compare the handwriting of the parties. The ruling by the High Court has made it clear that trial courts do, in fact, have the authority to make these kinds of comparisons in order to ascertain the legitimacy of contested documents.
Trial courts are permitted by Section 73 of the Evidence Act to verify the authenticity of handwriting and signatures by examining them and utilizing admitted or proven samples as a guide. When it comes to resolving disputes involving claims of forgery or inconsistencies in financial records such as checks, this clause is essential.
The Kerala High Court’s ruling upholds the trial courts’ procedural safeguards, guaranteeing that the handwriting verification procedure is an essential part of the court’s review of cases involving cases of check dishonour. The court has improved the trial court’s capacity to carry out exhaustive and impartial assessments of the evidence in financial disputes by upholding this jurisdiction.
Legal experts see this decision as an important clarification that will influence the way lower courts handle cases that are similar to theirs, encouraging a more thorough and accurate method of settling conflicts.