{"id":28361,"date":"2026-07-23T07:54:44","date_gmt":"2026-07-23T07:54:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=28361"},"modified":"2026-07-23T07:56:57","modified_gmt":"2026-07-23T07:56:57","slug":"validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\/","title":{"rendered":"Validity of a Typewritten Check under the Negotiable Instruments Act"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h1 id=\"h-kerala-high-court-on-presumptions-and-section-138-liability\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Kerala_High_Court_on_Presumptions_and_Section_138_Liability\"><\/span>Kerala High Court on Presumptions and Section 138 Liability<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h1>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>An Analysis of Shiny S. Nair v. State of Kerala and Ors.<\/strong><\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_85 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-1'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\/#Kerala_High_Court_on_Presumptions_and_Section_138_Liability\" >Kerala High Court on Presumptions and Section 138 Liability<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-2' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\/#Case_Snapshot\" >Case Snapshot<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\/#Core_Facts\" >Core Facts<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\/#Legal_Reasoning\" >Legal Reasoning<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\/#Fortifying_Authority_The_Supreme_Court_Framework\" >Fortifying Authority: The Supreme Court Framework<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\/#1_The_Twin_Presumptions_%E2%80%94_Rangappa_v_Sri_Mohan\" >1. The Twin Presumptions \u2014 Rangappa v. Sri Mohan<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\/#2_Standard_of_Rebuttal_%E2%80%94_MS_Narayana_Menon_Mani_v_State_of_Kerala\" >2. Standard of Rebuttal \u2014 M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani v. State of Kerala<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\/#3_Signature-Mismatch_Endorsements_Do_Not_Defeat_Section_138_%E2%80%94_Laxmi_Dyechem_v_State_of_Gujarat\" >3. Signature-Mismatch Endorsements Do Not Defeat Section 138 \u2014 Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\/#Combined_Legal_Position\" >Combined Legal Position<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\/#Citations\" >Citations<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\/#Practitioners_Checklist\" >Practitioner&#8217;s Checklist<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\/#Key_Legal_Principles_at_a_Glance\" >Key Legal Principles at a Glance<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\/#Conclusion\" >Conclusion<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\/#Important_Links\" >Important Links<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\/#Quick_Reference_Table\" >Quick Reference Table<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Kerala High Court, in <em>Shiny S. Nair v. State of Kerala and Ors.<\/em> in Criminal Appeal No. 705 of 2015 [2026:KER:52634], decided on 16\/07\/2026 and reaffirmed that the mere fact a check is typewritten does not, by itself, furnish a legally sustainable ground to doubt its genuineness or to withhold the statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Delivered by Justice A. Badharudeen in a criminal appeal against acquittal under Section 138, the ruling sits within a well-settled line of Supreme Court authority holding that a dishonor endorsement of \u201cdrawer\u2019s signature differs\u201d does not, without more, defeat prosecution once the transaction, execution, and dishonor of the check are otherwise proved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This article elucidates the Kerala High Court\u2019s reasoning against that Supreme Court framework and sets out the practical implications for check-dishonor litigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-case-snapshot\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Snapshot\"><\/span>Case Snapshot<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The appeal arose from C.C. No. 38 of 2014, in which the trial magistrate had acquitted the accused notwithstanding evidence that a check for Rs. 475,000 had been issued towards repayment of a loan transaction between relatives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The High Court found that the trial court had taken an unduly suspicious view of the complainant\u2019s case merely because a second loan was advanced while an earlier liability remained outstanding and accordingly reversed the acquittal and convicted the accused under Section 138.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Particular<\/th><th>Details<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Case<\/td><td><em>Shiny S. Nair v. State of Kerala and Ors.<\/em><\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Case Number<\/td><td>Criminal Appeal No. 705 of 2015<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Citation<\/td><td>2026:KER:52634<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Date of Decision<\/td><td>16 July 2026<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Judge<\/td><td>Justice A. Badharudeen<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Subject<\/td><td>Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-core-facts\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Core_Facts\"><\/span>Core Facts<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The complainant\u2019s case was that she advanced Rs. 175,000 on 14 June 2012 and a further Rs. 300,000 on 12 November 2012, following which the accused issued Ext. P1 cheque dated 13 December 2012.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The check was returned dishonored with the endorsement \u201cDrawer\u2019s signature differs,\u201d and though statutory notice was issued, payment was not made.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">PW1\u2019s testimony was corroborated by PW2, PW3, and PW4, and the bank records confirmed insufficiency of funds in the accused\u2019s account on the relevant date.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The accused had also admitted borrowing Rs. 200,000 in 2010 and claimed to have paid interest on it\u2014an admission the High Court treated as strengthening, rather than undermining, the complainant\u2019s version of a continuing financial relationship between the parties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-legal-reasoning\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Legal_Reasoning\"><\/span>Legal Reasoning<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Once the complainant established the transaction and the execution of the check, the twin presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act operated in her favor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court rejected the trial court\u2019s reasoning that it was inherently improbable for a complainant to advance a further sum while an earlier loan remained unpaid, particularly where the parties were relatives and the gap between the two transactions was only about five months.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court further held that a typewritten check is not prohibited by law and that this feature alone could not discredit the complainant\u2019s case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On the facts, the defense version was found insufficient to rebut the statutory presumptions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The complainant succeeded in proving that the transaction led to the execution of Ext. P1 check.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court categorically held that issuance of a typewritten check, though not common, is not prohibited by law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-fortifying-authority-the-supreme-court-framework\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Fortifying_Authority_The_Supreme_Court_Framework\"><\/span>Fortifying Authority: The Supreme Court Framework<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-1-the-twin-presumptions-rangappa-v-sri-mohan\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"1_The_Twin_Presumptions_%E2%80%94_Rangappa_v_Sri_Mohan\"><\/span>1. The Twin Presumptions \u2014 Rangappa v. Sri Mohan<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Kerala High Court\u2019s invocation of Sections 118 and 139 tracks the three-judge bench holding in <em>Rangappa v. Sri Mohan<\/em>, (2010) 11 SCC 441, where the Supreme Court held that the presumption under Section 139 extends to the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability and is a rebuttable presumption that the accused must displace on a standard short of proof beyond reasonable doubt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court there also clarified that once execution of the check is admitted or proved, the evidentiary burden shifts to the accused to raise a probable defense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-2-standard-of-rebuttal-m-s-narayana-menon-mani-v-state-of-kerala\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"2_Standard_of_Rebuttal_%E2%80%94_MS_Narayana_Menon_Mani_v_State_of_Kerala\"><\/span>2. Standard of Rebuttal \u2014 M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani v. State of Kerala<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The complementary authority on the accused\u2019s burden is <em>M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani v. State of Kerala<\/em>, (2006) 6 SCC 39, where the Supreme Court held that the standard of proof required of an accused seeking to rebut the Section 139 presumption is preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt, and that the accused may discharge this burden even through material elicited from the complainant\u2019s own evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Kerala High Court\u2019s finding that the defense version was insufficient to create a credible doubt is consistent with this framework: the accused, <em>Shiny S. Nair,<\/em> neither cross-examined effectively nor placed on record any material capable of displacing the presumption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-3-signature-mismatch-endorsements-do-not-defeat-section-138-laxmi-dyechem-v-state-of-gujarat\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"3_Signature-Mismatch_Endorsements_Do_Not_Defeat_Section_138_%E2%80%94_Laxmi_Dyechem_v_State_of_Gujarat\"><\/span>3. Signature-Mismatch Endorsements Do Not Defeat Section 138 \u2014 Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The most directly fortifying authority for the Kerala High Court\u2019s treatment of the &#8220;drawer&#8217;s signature differs\u201d endorsement is <em>Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat and Ors.<\/em>, (2012) 13 SCC 375.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">There, a two-judge bench (T.S. Thakur and Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.) held that the phrase \u201camount of money is insufficient\u201d in Section 138 is a genus of which reasons such as \u201caccount closed,\u201d \u201cpayment stopped,\u201d or \u201csignature mismatch\u201d are species and that a dishonor on account of signature discrepancy attracts the penal provision provided the other statutory ingredients are satisfied.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court reasoned that there is no qualitative difference between a drawer closing an account and a drawer altering his specimen signature to defeat encashment\u2014in both cases the check returns unpaid by the drawer\u2019s own act or omission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This squarely supports the Kerala High Court\u2019s holding that the endorsement on Ext. P1 did not, by itself, take the case outside Section 138.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It is pertinent that in <em>Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat<\/em> (supra), the Honorable Supreme Court categorically held that there is no qualitative difference between a situation where the dishonor takes place on account of the substitution of a new specimen signature and a situation where the drawer closes the account or stops payment.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-combined-legal-position\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Combined_Legal_Position\"><\/span>Combined Legal Position<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Read together, <em>Rangappa<\/em>, <em>Narayana Menon<\/em>, and <em>Laxmi Dyechem<\/em> supply the doctrinal scaffolding for the Kerala High Court\u2019s three propositions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Proof of the transaction and execution of the check is sufficient to trigger the statutory presumptions.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>A probable defense, not a mere denial, is required to rebut those presumptions.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The particular wording of a bank\u2019s dishonor memo\u2014whether \u201csignature differs,\u201d \u201caccount closed,\u201d or \u201cfunds insufficient\u201d\u2014does not control the applicability of Section 138 so long as the substantive ingredients of the offense are made out.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-citations\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Citations\"><\/span>Citations<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Case<\/th><th>Citation<\/th><th>Legal Principle<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td><em>Shiny S. Nair v. State of Kerala and Ors.<\/em><\/td><td>2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 384 (Ker HC, 20.07.2026, Badharudeen, J.)<\/td><td>A typewritten check and signature-mismatch endorsement do not defeat Section 138 where other ingredients are proved.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><em>Rangappa v. Sri Mohan<\/em><\/td><td>(2010) 11 SCC 441; AIR 2010 SC 1898<\/td><td>Section 139 presumption extends to the existence of a legally enforceable debt; it is rebuttable, not beyond reasonable doubt.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><em>M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani v. State of Kerala<\/em><\/td><td>(2006) 6 SCC 39; AIR 2006 SC 3366<\/td><td>The standard for rebutting the Section 139 presumption is a preponderance of probabilities.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><em>Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat and Ors.<\/em><\/td><td>(2012) 13 SCC 375<\/td><td>Dishonor for signature mismatch attracts Section 138 liability.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-practitioner-s-checklist\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Practitioners_Checklist\"><\/span>Practitioner&#8217;s Checklist<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Do not treat a \u201csignature differs\u201d or similarly worded dishonor memo as fatal to a Section 138 complaint at the drafting stage\u2014plead the transaction and execution of the check affirmatively and rely on <em>Laxmi Dyechem<\/em>, (2012) 13 SCC 375.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Lead evidence of the underlying transaction (dates, amounts, mode of advance, any partial repayment, or interest admissions) to trigger the Sections 118\/139 presumptions under <em>Rangappa<\/em>, (2010) 11 SCC 441.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Anticipate a defense built on relational proximity or a prior unpaid loan\u2014courts have declined to treat successive loans between relatives as inherently improbable.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Where the defense disputes signature genuineness, be prepared to meet a bare denial with the <em>Narayana Menon<\/em> standard: the accused must raise a probable defense, not merely assert doubt.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>On appeal against acquittal, marshal the trial court\u2019s specific findings that ignored or misapplied the statutory presumptions\u2014this is the ground on which the Kerala High Court intervened in <em>Shiny S. Nair<\/em>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>A typewritten check, without independent evidence of tampering or forgery, does not by itself impair the presumption of genuineness.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-key-legal-principles-at-a-glance\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Legal_Principles_at_a_Glance\"><\/span>Key Legal Principles at a Glance<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Issue<\/th><th>Position of Law<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Typewritten check<\/td><td>Not prohibited by law.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Signature differs endorsement<\/td><td>Does not automatically defeat a Section 138 complaint.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Sections 118 &amp; 139<\/td><td>Statutory presumptions arise once execution is proved.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Burden on accused<\/td><td>Must raise a probable defense on a preponderance of probabilities.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Relationship between parties<\/td><td>Successive loans between relatives are not inherently improbable.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-conclusion\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Conclusion\"><\/span>Conclusion<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Shiny S. Nair v. State of Kerala<\/em> is a useful addition to the appellate jurisprudence confirming that trial courts must apply, rather than speculate around, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Read with <em>Rangappa<\/em>, <em>Narayana Menon<\/em>, and <em>Laxmi Dyechem<\/em>, the judgment confirms that once the transaction and execution of a check are proved, neither the typewritten form of the instrument nor the specific wording of the bank\u2019s dishonor endorsement will, without more, defeat a complaint under Section 138.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-yoast-seo-related-links yoast-seo-related-links\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/cheque-dishonour-due-to-account-freezing-section-138-ni-act\/\">Cheque Dishonor from Frozen Account \u2013 Is Section 138 NI Act Attracted?<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/cheque-bounce-penalties-in-india-supreme-courts-latest-guidelines-on-demand-notice-validity\/\">Cheque Bounce Penalties in India: Supreme Court&#8217;s Latest Guidelines on Demand Notice Validity<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/influencer-marketing-and-law\/\">Influencer Marketing and Law<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/regulation-of-influencer-marketing-paid-promotions-in-indian-law\/\">Regulation of Influencer Marketing &amp; Paid Promotions in Indian Law<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trademark-law-and-social-media-influencers-disclosure-endorsement-guideline\/\">A Study On Trademark Law And Social Media Influencers&#8217; Disclosure And Endorsement Guidelines<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Important_Links\"><\/span>Important Links<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Important Links:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/lawyers\/lawyers_home.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Lawyers in India<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/copyright\/register.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Copyright Registration in India<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/articles\/index.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Caveat Filing in Supreme Court of India<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/helpline\/mutual_consent_divorce.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Mutual Consent Divorce in Delhi\/ <\/a>NCR: WhatsApp 9650499965<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Quick_Reference_Table\"><\/span>Quick Reference Table<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Legal Service<\/th><th>Link<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Lawyers in India<\/td><td><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/lawyers\/lawyers_home.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">View Directory<\/a><\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Copyright Registration in India<\/td><td><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/copyright\/register.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Learn More<\/a><\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Caveat Filing in Supreme Court of India<\/td><td><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/articles\/index.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Read More<\/a><\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Mutual Consent Divorce in Delhi\/NCR<\/td><td><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/helpline\/mutual_consent_divorce.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Get Details<\/a> \u2014 WhatsApp: <strong>9650499965<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court on Presumptions and Section 138 Liability An Analysis of Shiny S. Nair v. State of Kerala and Ors. The Kerala High Court, in Shiny S. Nair v. State of Kerala and Ors. in Criminal Appeal No. 705 of 2015 [2026:KER:52634], decided on 16\/07\/2026 and reaffirmed that the mere fact a check is<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":73,"featured_media":28448,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[4765,28],"class_list":["post-28361","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-banking-finance-laws","tag-banking-finance-laws","tag-top-news"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v28.1 (Yoast SEO v28.1) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Validity of a Typewritten Check under the Negotiable Instruments Act - Legal Service India - Articles<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The Kerala High Court rules typewritten checks and signature mismatches do not defeat Section 138 NI Act liability. Expert legal analysis.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Validity of a Typewritten Check under the Negotiable Instruments Act\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The Kerala High Court rules typewritten checks and signature mismatches do not defeat Section 138 NI Act liability. Expert legal analysis.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Legal Service India - Articles\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-07-23T07:54:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-07-23T07:56:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/kerala-high-court-section-138-typewritten-cheque-signature-mismatch-ni-act.webp\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1536\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1024\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/webp\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Inder Jain\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legalserviceind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@legalserviceind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Inder Jain\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Inder Jain\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/ad1e46eba703bd5bc7788cc8bb7cca20\"},\"headline\":\"Validity of a Typewritten Check under the Negotiable Instruments Act\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-23T07:54:44+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-23T07:56:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1585,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/kerala-high-court-section-138-typewritten-cheque-signature-mismatch-ni-act.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"Banking &amp; Finance laws\",\"Top News\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Banking &amp; Finance laws\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\\\/\",\"name\":\"Validity of a Typewritten Check under the Negotiable Instruments Act - Legal Service India - Articles\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/kerala-high-court-section-138-typewritten-cheque-signature-mismatch-ni-act.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-23T07:54:44+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-23T07:56:57+00:00\",\"description\":\"The Kerala High Court rules typewritten checks and signature mismatches do not defeat Section 138 NI Act liability. Expert legal analysis.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/kerala-high-court-section-138-typewritten-cheque-signature-mismatch-ni-act.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/kerala-high-court-section-138-typewritten-cheque-signature-mismatch-ni-act.webp\",\"width\":1536,\"height\":1024,\"caption\":\"Kerala High Court Section 138\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Banking & Finance laws > Banking & Finance lawsSection 138 NI Act Explained: Kerala High Court Upholds Presumptions Despite Typewritten Cheque and Signature Mismatch\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\",\"name\":\"Legal Service India - Law Articles\",\"description\":\"Legal Service India - Law Article Directory is the oldest in India since 2000, with thousands of article written by lawyers, law Students and Scholars on all branches of law\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Legal Service India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/logo-circle-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/logo-circle-1.png\",\"width\":105,\"height\":95,\"caption\":\"Legal Service India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/legalservicesind\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legalserviceind\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.youtube.com\\\/@LegalServiceIndia-lsi\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/ad1e46eba703bd5bc7788cc8bb7cca20\",\"name\":\"Inder Jain\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/13e802d35a283dba679d3529a0380965?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"url\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/13e802d35a283dba679d3529a0380965?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"contentUrl\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/13e802d35a283dba679d3529a0380965?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"caption\":\"Inder Jain\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/author\\\/inderjain\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Validity of a Typewritten Check under the Negotiable Instruments Act - Legal Service India - Articles","description":"The Kerala High Court rules typewritten checks and signature mismatches do not defeat Section 138 NI Act liability. Expert legal analysis.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Validity of a Typewritten Check under the Negotiable Instruments Act","og_description":"The Kerala High Court rules typewritten checks and signature mismatches do not defeat Section 138 NI Act liability. Expert legal analysis.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\/","og_site_name":"Legal Service India - Articles","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","article_published_time":"2026-07-23T07:54:44+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-07-23T07:56:57+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1536,"height":1024,"url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/kerala-high-court-section-138-typewritten-cheque-signature-mismatch-ni-act.webp","type":"image\/webp"}],"author":"Inder Jain","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legalserviceind","twitter_site":"@legalserviceind","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Inder Jain","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\/"},"author":{"name":"Inder Jain","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/ad1e46eba703bd5bc7788cc8bb7cca20"},"headline":"Validity of a Typewritten Check under the Negotiable Instruments Act","datePublished":"2026-07-23T07:54:44+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-23T07:56:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\/"},"wordCount":1585,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/kerala-high-court-section-138-typewritten-cheque-signature-mismatch-ni-act.webp","keywords":["Banking &amp; Finance laws","Top News"],"articleSection":["Banking &amp; Finance laws"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\/","name":"Validity of a Typewritten Check under the Negotiable Instruments Act - Legal Service India - Articles","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/kerala-high-court-section-138-typewritten-cheque-signature-mismatch-ni-act.webp","datePublished":"2026-07-23T07:54:44+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-23T07:56:57+00:00","description":"The Kerala High Court rules typewritten checks and signature mismatches do not defeat Section 138 NI Act liability. Expert legal analysis.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/kerala-high-court-section-138-typewritten-cheque-signature-mismatch-ni-act.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/kerala-high-court-section-138-typewritten-cheque-signature-mismatch-ni-act.webp","width":1536,"height":1024,"caption":"Kerala High Court Section 138"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/validity-of-a-typewritten-check-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Banking & Finance laws > Banking & Finance lawsSection 138 NI Act Explained: Kerala High Court Upholds Presumptions Despite Typewritten Cheque and Signature Mismatch"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/","name":"Legal Service India - Law Articles","description":"Legal Service India - Law Article Directory is the oldest in India since 2000, with thousands of article written by lawyers, law Students and Scholars on all branches of law","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization","name":"Legal Service India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/logo-circle-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/logo-circle-1.png","width":105,"height":95,"caption":"Legal Service India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","https:\/\/x.com\/legalserviceind","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LegalServiceIndia-lsi"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/ad1e46eba703bd5bc7788cc8bb7cca20","name":"Inder Jain","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/13e802d35a283dba679d3529a0380965?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","url":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/13e802d35a283dba679d3529a0380965?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","contentUrl":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/13e802d35a283dba679d3529a0380965?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","caption":"Inder Jain"},"url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/author\/inderjain\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/kerala-high-court-section-138-typewritten-cheque-signature-mismatch-ni-act.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28361","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/73"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=28361"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28361\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":28449,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28361\/revisions\/28449"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/28448"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28361"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28361"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28361"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}