1) cheques have been issued by accused in his capacity as proprietor

2) accused would be liable to make payment and can be convicted in case he fails to make payment

3) even if signature differs accused would be liable

Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat, (2012) 13 SCC 375 : 2013 Cri LJ 3288,

he Supreme Court observed as under:

“The above line of decisions leaves no room for holding that the two contingencies envisaged under Section 138 of the Act must be interpreted strictly or literally. We find ourselves in respectful agreement with the decision in Magma case that the expression “amount of money … is insufficient” appearing in Section 138 of the Act is a genus and dishonour for reasons such “as account closed”, “payment stopped”, “referred to the drawer” are only species of that genus. Just as dishonour of a cheque on the ground that the account has been closed is a dishonour falling in the first contingency referred to in Section 138, so also dishonour on the ground that the “signatures do not match” or that the “image is not found”, which too implies that the specimen signatures do not match the signatures on the cheque would constitute a dishonour within the meaning of Section 138 of the Act.”

n offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act may be made out even where the cheque has been returned unpaid on the ground of signature difference.

Do not worry his defence of this nature will not be entertained in court.

Show the court past transaction of him as owner of the firm.

If he challenges the signature then send this to FSL for expert opinion.

Once his signature is allowed you will win case for sure.

So do not worry and continue your case will all vigour and sincerity.

1. In a cheque bounce prosecution there is a presumption that the cheque in question was issued in discharge of legal liability, which is rebuttable by the accused. You have to prove that he was legally liable to pay you the amount covered by the cheque, in partial or full discharge of which he had issued the cheques in question.

2. The citations can be searched by your goodself also by doing a google search as without perusal of pleadings it is not possible to decide which citation would attract to the case.

now accused has taken up contention that he is not the owner , he has signed as manager, but he has signed on the cheque as proprietor , but as per records of the bank he himself has issued several cheques which have been honoured by the bank earlier, now he is defending as signature verifies and i m not the owner of the firm, that he has opened the firm in two names , so pls suggest me of , signature has varied on the cheque.any case laws on on this point,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

The accused can take any defence to protect himself, it will not be final.

his matter is to be decided during cross examination if he is coming out with defence witness.

This is a usual defence.

Your lawyer should handle such issues and should not have allowed this thing to eat your brain.

now in above case the matter is posted for arguments , i have examined bank managers , the accused has not led any evidence for his defence

Your advocate will provide citations on this matter as per the prevailing circumstances by looking for an appropriate citation.

You can rely upon him