AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner is facing a complaint filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
During the pendency of the abovesaid complaint, the accused (applicant herein) filed an application under Section 45 read with Section 71 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 seeking examination of the writing appearing on the cheque through hand-writing expert.
Her stand, it seems, is to the effect that she had given two blank cheques in order to fulfil her family obligations. Though, the cheques were blank but these were, admittedly, signed by her. According to her, the accused had claimed that he would fill up Rs.50,000/- on each of the cheque but later on, he retracted from his such promise and assurance and mentioned a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on each such cheque.
It is in the abovesaid backdrop that the applicant prayed for examination of the hand-writing on such cheques.
As already noted above, the applicant does not dispute that the cheques in question were bearing her signatures. Even if these were blank cheques signed by her, she cannot run away from the presumption as contained under Section 20 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 which reads as under:-
“20.Inchoate stamped instruments.-Where one person signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accordance with the law relating to negotiable instruments then in force in India, and either wholly blank or having written thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument, he thereby gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete, as the case may be, upon it a negotiable instrument, for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp. The person so signing shall be liable upon such instrument, in the capacity in which he signed the same, to any holder in due course for such amount: provided that no person other than a holder in due course shall recover from the person delivering the instrument anything in excess of the amount intended by him to be paid thereunder.”
Learned Trial Court, in the abovesaid backdrop and also while relying upon Bir Singh vs. Mukesh Kumar: 2019 (4) SCC 197, M/s. Kalamani Tex vs. P. Balasubramanian: 2021 SCC OnLine SC 75 and Ravi Chopra v. State and Another: 2008 SCC OnLine Del 351 refused to give any indulgence to her.
When she knocked the doors of the learned Revisional Court by filing a petition before the learned Court of Sessions, her such petition was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on 13.08.2025, while also observing that the impugned order was not amenable to revision, being interlocutory in nature. Learned Revisional Court, however, despite the above, considered the case on merits as well but did not find any substance in her request.
Faced with the abovesaid dismissal, the present petition has been filed under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding Section 482 Cr. P.C.).
Apparently, it is a second Revision Petition in the garb of invoking jurisdiction of this Court by filing a Petition under Section 528 of BNSS.
Moreover, as rightly noted by the learned Trial and Revisional Courts, once signatures are admitted by the drawer on the cheques, he cannot, without giving any compelling reason, seek the examination of the hand writing appearing on the cheques through some expert. Such exercise, if permitted in a casual manner, would result in unnecessary delay in disposal of the complaint case. Reference be made to the following observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bir Singh (supra):-
“33.A 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. It 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. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of Section 138 would be attracted.
34.If 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. The onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence.”
Finding no merits in the present petition, same is, hereby, dismissed in limine.
Pending applications stand disposed of.