The documents of the case revealed that the appellant had admitted that he had received an amount of money from the litigant according to a guarantee bill.

The court said that the bill included the basic details about the appellant including his signature. The court said that the documents of the case revealed that the appellant then denied the bill and his signature on it. The court said that the appellant, however, failed to prove his claim and to indicate the way by which the bill was transferred to the litigant. The court said that the appellant had failed to maintain his defence that he signed a blank bill before the elementary court and therefore he did not have the right to maintain this defence before the court of cassation for the first time. The court said that the court dismissed the appellant's request for appointing an expert because the bill included his basic details and his signature and therefore it had gained a legally binding power.