Kerala HC: Accused's Admission of Signature on Stamp Paper Is Not Equivalent to Execution of Agreement

The Kerala High Court has clarified that an accused's admission of their signature on a blank stamp paper does not automatically amount to an admission of the execution of a disputed agreement.

A single-judge bench of Justice G. Girish set aside a Magistrate's order that had denied a petitioner's request for forensic examination of a crucial agreement. The Court emphasized that denying an opportunity to challenge the authenticity of a document that forms the base of a financial liability would cause serious prejudice to the accused.

Court Challenges Magistrate's Finding On Admission

The High Court observed that the lower court had erred in assuming the petitioner admitted to the execution of the agreement. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The finding of the learned Magistrate that the prayer of the petitioner to send Ext.P7 agreement for expert analysis, cannot be allowed since the petitioner had admitted his signatures in that document, is totally unfounded. Ext.P7, being the basic document which disclosed the liability of the petitioner that compelled him to issue the impugned cheques, cannot be sidelined as an irrelevant or unimportant document. If the said document is found to be a concocted or manipulated one, the entire case of the complainant would crumble to the ground."

The Court further noted that while the petitioner admitted signatures on blank stamp papers, he consistently denied the execution of the specific agreement (Ext.P7) during cross-examination and statements under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C (now Section 351 of the BNSS).

Directives Issued For Forensic Analysis

To ensure a fair trial, the Court has issued the following directions:

"i) The impugned order dated 04.02.2026 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV, Kollam, is hereby set aside.

ii) The learned Magistrate is directed to take the necessary steps to send Ext.P7 agreement to the Forensic Science Laboratory for expert analysis as to whether it contains the signatures affixed by the petitioner/accused in the normal course of business.

iii) It is made clear that the petitioner/accused is having the responsibility to make available his contemporaneous specimen handwritings and signatures, to enable the expert analysis of Ext.P7 agreement.

iv) The expenses for such analysis of Ext.P7 shall also be met by the petitioner/accused.

v) It is further made clear that if the petitioner/accused does not make available the contemporaneous specimen handwritings and signatures, as stated hereinabove, within a reasonable time for sending it, along with the disputed document, to the Forensic Science Laboratory, the learned Magistrate shall proceed with the case, without sending the said document for expert analysis."

Background:

The dispute originated from a criminal prosecution launched by the first respondent against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant alleged that the petitioner owed Rs.58,93,812/- related to the import of cashew nuts and had issued three cheques based on an agreement executed on 30.11.2016.

The petitioner contended that the complainant had manipulated signed blank cheques and stamp papers. Initially, the Magistrate and the Sessions Court had rejected the petitioner’s plea to send the agreement (Ext.P7) to a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). Although this Court had previously in Crl.M.C No.9316/2025 directed the Trial Court to consider a fresh application on merits, the Magistrate again dismissed the request on February 4, 2026, leading to the current revision petition.

Case Details:
Case No.: Crl.R.P No.280/2026
NeutralCitation: 2026:KER:45867
Case Title: Anish K. Thomas v. Sajan P.Y & Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Sri.M.Kiranlal, Sri.Manu Ramachandran, Sri.T.S.Sarath, Sri.R.Rajesh (Varkala), Smt.Sailakshmi Menon, Shri.V.M.Vishnu Mohan, Smt. Aashi K. Shajan, Shri.Harisankar R, Smt.Binitha Maria Thomas (Advocates)
For the Respondent(s): Sri.Liju.M.P, Smt.Anargha R, Sri.Githesh.R (Sr. Public Prosecutor)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(KER) 360