Man moves Supreme Court alleging he was booked in 1999 cheque bounce case due to mistaken identity

The Supreme Court recently granted interim relief to one CK Abhurahiman, who has claimed that he has been wrongly accused of issuing a dishonored cheque that was actually issued and signed by another who went by the name, 'CK Abdullakutty' [CK Abdurahiman @ Manu v. Mukkath Marakkar Haji & Anr.].

On June 23, a Supreme Court Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Joymalya Bagchi admitted Abdurahiman's appeal, suspended his sentence and granted him bail, provided he deposits half of the cheque amount (half of ₹20 lakh) with the Court's registry.

The Kerala High Court had earlier concluded that there was enough material to indicate that the 'Abdullakutty' who signed the bounced cheque and the 'Abdurahiman' who was booked in the case were the same person.

By a December 2024 ruling, the High Court had rejected Abdurahiman's "strange defence" of mistaken identity.

Among other factors, the High Court noted that three witnesses associated with the bank had identified him as the person who signed the cheque, and that both "Abdullakutty" and "Abdurahiman" shared the same house name.

This was despite the High Court acknowledging that the signature on the bounced cheque and a specimen signature with Abdurahiman's signature were not identical. It, however, went on to conclude that Abdurahiman may not be in the habit of putting identical signs all the time.

It, therefore, convicted him in the cheque bounce case filed in 1999.

Nevertheless, the High Court reduced the prison sentence imposed on him earlier by a trial court, given how old the case was and considering that it was only a cheque bounce case.

The High Court proceeded to sentence him to simple imprisonment for one day, till the rising of the Court. It further ordered him to pay compensation of ₹23 lakh, the bounced cheque being one for ₹20 lakh.

By way of background, the complainant in this case claimed that the dispute originated in an 1998 agreement to sell a rubber estate between him (one Mukkath Marakkar Haji) and Abdurahiman.

In May 1999, a cheque with the sale price of ₹20 lakhs was issued in favor of the complainant. However, it bounced in November 1999 due to insufficient funds.

Notably, the cheque was drawn from an account held by one C Abdullakutty. A legal notice demanding payment was issued in November 1999 but addressed to Abdurahiman, who was later booked for the offence of cheque dishonour.

Following a trial, the Judicial First-Class Magistrate in Perinthalmanna, convicted Abdurahiman in March 2004, under Section 138 (dishonour of cheque) of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

However, on appeal, a Sessions Court overturned the conviction in 2006.

This was challenged by the complainant before the Kerala High Court, which restored Abdurahiman's conviction.

Abdurahiman has now approached the Supreme Court in the matter, maintaining that neither was he a party to the 1998 agreement nor was he the one who issued the dishonoured cheque or the one who held the bank account from which it was issued.

The matter is listed before the Supreme Court next on August 12.

Advocates Sriram Parakkat, Deepak Prakash, Gayathri Muraleedharan, Nachiketa Vajpayee, Divyangna Malik, Jyoti Pandey, Rahul Suresh, Shivangi Rajawat, Chetan Jadon, Parthasarthy, Ridhika and Samridhi Srivastava appeared for Abdurahiman.

[Read Order]