{"id":30484,"date":"2026-08-18T07:41:39","date_gmt":"2026-08-18T07:41:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=30484"},"modified":"2026-08-18T07:51:37","modified_gmt":"2026-08-18T07:51:37","slug":"kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act\/","title":{"rendered":"Different Ink Does Not Invalidate a Cheque: Kerala High Court Ruling Under Section 138 NI Act"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h1 id=\"h-kerala-high-court-reaffirms-the-evidentiary-effect-of-sections-118-and-139-of-the-ni-act\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Kerala_High_Court_Reaffirms_the_Evidentiary_Effect_of_Sections_118_and_139_of_the_NI_Act\"><\/span>Kerala High Court Reaffirms the Evidentiary Effect of Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h1>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-a-cheque-does-not-become-invalid-merely-because-its-signature-date-amount-and-other-particulars-were-written-in-different-inks\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"A_Cheque_Does_Not_Become_Invalid_Merely_Because_Its_Signature_Date_Amount_and_Other_Particulars_Were_Written_in_Different_Inks\"><\/span>A Cheque Does Not Become Invalid Merely Because Its Signature, Date, Amount and Other Particulars Were Written in Different Inks<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It is often seen that cheques are written by the accountant\/clerk, or by another partner\/director but signed by the authorized signatory, who is different from the person who wrote a cheque. Naturally, the pens &amp; inks would be different. The accused often utilize this discrepancy to assail the case of the complainant pleading preponderance of probabilities against the accused.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_86 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\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act\/#Kerala_High_Court_Reaffirms_the_Evidentiary_Effect_of_Sections_118_and_139_of_the_NI_Act\" >Kerala High Court Reaffirms the Evidentiary Effect of Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act<\/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\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act\/#A_Cheque_Does_Not_Become_Invalid_Merely_Because_Its_Signature_Date_Amount_and_Other_Particulars_Were_Written_in_Different_Inks\" >A Cheque Does Not Become Invalid Merely Because Its Signature, Date, Amount and Other Particulars Were Written in Different Inks<\/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\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act\/#Kerala_High_Court_Decision_Under_Section_138_of_the_NI_Act\" >Kerala High Court Decision Under Section 138 of the NI Act<\/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\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act\/#Decision_in_D_Chandran\" >Decision in D. Chandran<\/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\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act\/#The_Courts_Exact_Holding\" >The Court\u2019s Exact Holding<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act\/#Statutory_Scheme\" >Statutory Scheme<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act\/#Supreme_Court_Position\" >Supreme Court Position<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act\/#Standard_for_Rebuttal\" >Standard for Rebuttal<\/a><\/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\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act\/#Ink_Difference_and_Material_Alteration\" >Ink Difference and Material Alteration<\/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\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act\/#Application_to_the_Present_Case\" >Application to the Present Case<\/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\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act\/#Evidentiary_Lessons\" >Evidentiary Lessons<\/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\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act\/#Doctrinal_Significance\" >Doctrinal Significance<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-kerala-high-court-decision-under-section-138-of-the-ni-act\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Kerala_High_Court_Decision_Under_Section_138_of_the_NI_Act\"><\/span>Kerala High Court Decision Under Section 138 of the NI Act<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Kerala High Court in the case of <em>D. Chandran v. S. Anilkumar &amp; Anr.<\/em>, Criminal Appeal No. 932 of 2021, citation 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 159 CNR : KLHC010726012021 recently decided on 5th August, 2026 has held that a cheque does not become invalid merely because its signature, date, amount and other particulars were written in different inks. The decision reinforces the settled principle that variation in ink, or the fact that the cheque particulars were filled in by someone other than the drawer, is not by itself sufficient to defeat prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (\u201cNI Act\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-decision-in-d-chandran\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Decision_in_D_Chandran\"><\/span>Decision in D. Chandran<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In D. Chandran v. S. Anilkumar &amp; Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 932 of 2021, Justice A. Badharudeen allowed the complainant\u2019s appeal against acquittal and convicted the accused under Section 138 of the NI Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The cheque involved was for \u20b97 lakh and had been dishonoured with the endorsement \u201cpayment stopped by drawer.\u201d The accused admitted borrowing \u20b92.35 lakh from the complainant and also admitted that the cheque bore his signature. His defence was that two signed blank cheques had been issued as security and that the liability had subsequently been discharged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court found that, except for evidence of repayment of \u20b935,000, the accused produced no convincing material to establish payment of the remaining \u20b92 lakh. It therefore held that the plea of discharge had not been proved by cogent and convincing evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-the-court-s-exact-holding\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"The_Courts_Exact_Holding\"><\/span>The Court\u2019s Exact Holding<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Kerala High Court rejected the argument that different inks cast doubt on the execution or validity of the cheque. It held thus:<\/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\">\u201cMerely because the signature was put by using one ink and entries were made by using another ink by itself would not make the negotiable instrument as an invalid document or a document to doubt its probable execution.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The decision recognises an important practical reality: a drawer may sign a cheque at one point of time, while the date, amount or payee\u2019s name may be inserted later. The NI Act does not prescribe that all particulars must necessarily be written simultaneously or with the same instrument.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Accordingly, a difference in ink may be a circumstance requiring examination in an appropriate case, but it cannot, without supporting evidence, establish forgery, material alteration, want of consideration or non-execution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-statutory-scheme\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Statutory_Scheme\"><\/span>Statutory Scheme<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Section 118(a) of the NI Act creates a presumption that a negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration. Section 139 further provides:<\/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\">\u201cIt shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque\u2026 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">These presumptions are rebuttable, but they operate once the foundational facts\u2014particularly the signature or execution of the cheque\u2014are established or admitted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The burden is therefore not initially on the complainant to prove every aspect of the underlying transaction as though no statutory presumption existed. The accused must first place before the court a probable and legally acceptable defence capable of rebutting the presumption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-supreme-court-position\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Supreme_Court_Position\"><\/span>Supreme Court Position<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Kerala High Court\u2019s approach is consistent with the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197. The Supreme Court in the said case held thus:<\/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\">\u201cA 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.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court further clarified:<\/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\">\u201cIt 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.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It also held thus:<\/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\">\u201cIf 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.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Prabodh Kumar Tewari, Criminal Appeal No. 1260 of 2022; (2022) 7 SCR 72; 2022 INSC 830. The Court held that the presumption under Section 139 arises when the drawer signs and hands over the cheque, and that the question whether the remaining particulars were filled in by the drawer is generally immaterial to determining whether the cheque was issued towards a debt or liability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court specifically observed:<\/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\">\u201cThe presumption which arises on the signing of the cheque cannot be rebutted merely by the report of a hand-writing expert.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It added thus:<\/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\">\u201cEven if the details in the cheque have not been filled up by drawer but by another person, this is not relevant to the defense whether cheque was issued towards payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-standard-for-rebuttal\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Standard_for_Rebuttal\"><\/span>Standard for Rebuttal<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The presumption under Section 139 is not conclusive. The accused may rebut it by relying on the complainant\u2019s evidence, surrounding circumstances, documents, cross-examination or independent defence evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">However, the applicable standard is preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. In Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441, the Supreme Court recognised that Section 139 creates a rebuttable presumption and that the accused may rebut it by raising a probable defence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court later explained in Oriental Bank of Commerce that the accused need not necessarily enter the witness box, but the defence must nevertheless be sufficiently probable to create a genuine doubt regarding the existence of the legally enforceable debt or liability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A merely possible explanation is not enough. In the words of the Kerala High Court:<\/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\">\u201cIt is well settled law that when a party asserts discharge of a liability, he must prove the same with the aid of cogent and convincing evidence.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Thus, an assertion that the cheque was issued as security, or that the debt was repaid, must be supported by credible circumstances such as receipts, bank entries, correspondence, accounts, settlement documents or reliable oral evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-ink-difference-and-material-alteration\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Ink_Difference_and_Material_Alteration\"><\/span>Ink Difference and Material Alteration<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Section 87 of the NI Act deals with material alteration. A material alteration is one that changes the legal effect of the instrument or affects the rights and liabilities of the parties without the consent of the relevant party.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A mere difference in ink does not, in itself, demonstrate that the contents were unlawfully altered. It does not show what was written originally, when it was written, whether the drawer authorised its completion, or whether the particulars changed the substance of the transaction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The distinction is important:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Issue<\/th><th>Legal Significance<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Different ink<\/td><td>May be a circumstance requiring examination, but does not by itself establish invalidity or fabrication.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Signed blank cheque<\/td><td>May still attract the statutory presumption under Section 139.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Material alteration<\/td><td>Requires examination of whether the legal effect or rights and liabilities were changed without authority.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Repayment defence<\/td><td>Must be supported by cogent and convincing evidence.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court must therefore examine the entire evidentiary record rather than decide the case on the visual appearance of the cheque alone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-application-to-the-present-case\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Application_to_the_Present_Case\"><\/span>Application to the Present Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In D. Chandran, the accused did not merely face an allegation based on ink variation. His signature on the cheque and the borrowing from the complainant were material admissions. His principal defence was repayment of the liability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court found that the repayment plea was inadequately substantiated. Evidence of repayment of \u20b935,000 could not establish discharge of the balance amount. The accused\u2019s admission of the loan and issuance of the signed cheque strengthened the complainant\u2019s entitlement to rely on the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court also rejected the contention that the complainant\u2019s statement that the money had been kept at his residence was inherently improbable. It observed:<\/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\">\u201cKeeping money in the house by itself is not an improbability, unless the improbability [is] established by evidence.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The judgment consequently sets aside the acquittal and records conviction under Section 138. The accused was sentenced to simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and directed to pay a fine of \u20b98.15 lakh, with six months\u2019 simple imprisonment in default.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-evidentiary-lessons\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Evidentiary_Lessons\"><\/span>Evidentiary Lessons<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The ruling carries the following practical implications for cheque-dishonour litigation:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Different inks should not be treated as conclusive proof of fabrication or invalidity.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Admission of the signature materially strengthens the complainant\u2019s case.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>A signed blank cheque may still attract the presumption under Section 139.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The accused must rebut the presumption through a probable and evidence-based defence.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>A claim of repayment should ordinarily be supported by documentary or reliable independent evidence.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>A handwriting or ink expert\u2019s opinion cannot, by itself, determine whether the cheque was issued in discharge of a debt.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Courts should distinguish between a visual irregularity and a legally proved material alteration.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The complainant must still establish the statutory requirements of Section 138, including presentation, dishonour, legally compliant notice and failure to make payment within the prescribed period.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-doctrinal-significance\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Doctrinal_Significance\"><\/span>Doctrinal Significance<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The judgment does not mean that every cheque containing entries in different inks must automatically result in conviction. The accused remains entitled to prove that the signature was forged, the cheque was stolen, the instrument was materially altered without authority, the debt did not exist, or the liability had already been discharged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Its narrower and significant holding is that different ink is only a circumstance; it is not a legal invalidating factor by itself. The decisive inquiry remains whether the cheque was voluntarily signed and delivered, whether a legally enforceable debt or liability existed, and whether the accused has rebutted the statutory presumptions through credible evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Kerala High Court\u2019s decision in D. Chandran v. S. Anilkumar therefore strengthens the evidentiary discipline required in Section 138 proceedings: courts must decide cheque cases on admissions, presumptions, probabilities and corroborative evidence\u2014not on the color of ink alone.<\/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\/supreme-court-redefines-transfer-of-property-in-printing-works-contracts-a-landmark-ruling-on-tax-liability-for-consumables\/\">Supreme Court Redefines Transfer of Property in Printing Works Contracts: A Landmark Ruling on Tax Liability for Consumables<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/handwriting-and-document-analysis-in-forensic-science\/\">Handwriting and Document Analysis in Forensic Science<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/cheque-bounce-and-debt-recovery-in-the-uae-legal-remedies-and-enforcement-procedures\/\">Check Bounce and Debt Recovery in the UAE: Legal Remedies and Enforcement Procedures<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/cheque-bounce-litigation-in-india-procedure-burden-of-proof-and-recent-supreme-court-rulings\/\">Cheque Bounce Litigation in India: Procedure, Burden of Proof, and Recent Supreme Court Rulings<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-legal-framework-governing-cheques-bills-and-promissory-notes\/\">The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: Legal Framework Governing Checks, Bills, and Promissory Notes<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court Reaffirms the Evidentiary Effect of Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act A Cheque Does Not Become Invalid Merely Because Its Signature, Date, Amount and Other Particulars Were Written in Different Inks It is often seen that cheques are written by the accountant\/clerk, or by another partner\/director but signed by the<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":73,"featured_media":30593,"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-30484","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 v28.2 (Yoast SEO v28.2) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Different Ink Does Not Invalidate a Cheque: Kerala High Court Ruling Under Section 138 NI Act - Legal Service India - Articles<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Kerala High Court rules different inks do not invalidate a check under Section 138 NI Act, reinforcing presumptions for signed checks.\" \/>\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\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Different Ink Does Not Invalidate a Cheque: Kerala High Court Ruling Under Section 138 NI Act\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Kerala High Court rules different inks do not invalidate a check under Section 138 NI Act, reinforcing presumptions for signed checks.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-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=\"2026-08-18T07:41:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-08-18T07:51:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act-1024x683.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1024\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"683\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\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=\"7 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\\\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Inder Jain\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/ad1e46eba703bd5bc7788cc8bb7cca20\"},\"headline\":\"Different Ink Does Not Invalidate a Cheque: Kerala High Court Ruling Under Section 138 NI Act\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-18T07:41:39+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-08-18T07:51:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1793,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act.png\",\"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\\\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act\\\/\",\"name\":\"Different Ink Does Not Invalidate a Cheque: Kerala High Court Ruling Under Section 138 NI Act - Legal Service India - Articles\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-18T07:41:39+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-08-18T07:51:37+00:00\",\"description\":\"Kerala High Court rules different inks do not invalidate a check under Section 138 NI Act, reinforcing presumptions for signed checks.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act.png\",\"width\":1536,\"height\":1024,\"caption\":\"Kerala High Court cheque dishonour judgment 2026\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Banking & Finance laws > Kerala High Court on Cheque Dishonour: Different Inks, Signed Blank Cheques and Section 139 Presumption\"}]},{\"@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":"Different Ink Does Not Invalidate a Cheque: Kerala High Court Ruling Under Section 138 NI Act - Legal Service India - Articles","description":"Kerala High Court rules different inks do not invalidate a check under Section 138 NI Act, reinforcing presumptions for signed checks.","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\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Different Ink Does Not Invalidate a Cheque: Kerala High Court Ruling Under Section 138 NI Act","og_description":"Kerala High Court rules different inks do not invalidate a check under Section 138 NI Act, reinforcing presumptions for signed checks.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act\/","og_site_name":"Legal Service India - Articles","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","article_published_time":"2026-08-18T07:41:39+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-08-18T07:51:37+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1024,"height":683,"url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act-1024x683.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Inder Jain","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legalserviceind","twitter_site":"@legalserviceind","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Inder Jain","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act\/"},"author":{"name":"Inder Jain","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/ad1e46eba703bd5bc7788cc8bb7cca20"},"headline":"Different Ink Does Not Invalidate a Cheque: Kerala High Court Ruling Under Section 138 NI Act","datePublished":"2026-08-18T07:41:39+00:00","dateModified":"2026-08-18T07:51:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act\/"},"wordCount":1793,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act.png","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\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act\/","name":"Different Ink Does Not Invalidate a Cheque: Kerala High Court Ruling Under Section 138 NI Act - Legal Service India - Articles","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act.png","datePublished":"2026-08-18T07:41:39+00:00","dateModified":"2026-08-18T07:51:37+00:00","description":"Kerala High Court rules different inks do not invalidate a check under Section 138 NI Act, reinforcing presumptions for signed checks.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act.png","width":1536,"height":1024,"caption":"Kerala High Court cheque dishonour judgment 2026"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Banking & Finance laws > Kerala High Court on Cheque Dishonour: Different Inks, Signed Blank Cheques and Section 139 Presumption"}]},{"@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_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/kerala-high-court-different-ink-cheque-section-138-ni-act.png","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30484","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=30484"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30484\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":30597,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30484\/revisions\/30597"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/30593"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30484"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30484"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30484"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}