JUDGMENT : 1. In the instant petition filed under Section 561-A Cr. P.C. petitioners seek quashment of the order dated 10.5.2014 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kathua, by virtue of which the revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order dated 12.2.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kathua, in a petition for calling expert report with regard to the amount figured and name written as Sudershan Kumar Gupta in cheque no. 7677310 dated 17.1.2007, has been dismissed. 2. In this petition, it has been stated that order impugned is against the law and facts of the case, thereby causing miscarriage of justice. Courts have failed to exercise the jurisdiction, as such; the same deserves to be quashed. That cheque, if entrusted to somebody in blank as security and any inscription thereon by a person entrusted with cheque does amount to misappropriation of property, so order of courts below are illegal. That M/s Chowdhary Enterprises was sealed by Punjab National Bank on 10.11.2005 and cheque in question pertains to Cheque-Book issued in 2001, as such, it becomes more important as to who inscribed the cheque. 3. I have considered the submission. Petitioners have reiterated all grounds taken in this petition and has relied upon 2013 (2) Crimes 649 (Raj) case titled Hanuman Sahay Sharma vs. Manish Dhamani, wherein it is held that where a contention is raised that complainant has misused the cheque then prayer of accused for sending the cheque to handwriting expert for its examination deserves to be considered. 4. From the perusal of pleadings, it is evident that the respondent had filed a complaint under Section 138 for dishonor of cheque No. 7677310 dated 17.01.2007, of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against petitioners, which is pending disposal before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kathua titled, Sudershan Kumar Gupta vs. Gurnam Singh and Another. 5. That during currency of proceeding, petitioner herein filed a petition for calling hand writing expert with regard to the amount figured as well name written as Sudershan Gupta. Trail court dismissed the petition on 12.2.2014 on the ground that petitioner accused has not denied his signature, so it is not necessary to see as to who has filed body of cheque. Trail court dismissed the petition on 12.2.2014 on the ground that petitioner accused has not denied his signature, so it is not necessary to see as to who has filed body of cheque. A revision petition was filed by petitioner, which too was dismissed on same ground while relying on judgment in case titled P.S.A. Thomarthan vs. Dalmia Cements (B) Ltd. 2005 (1) DCR 85 . 6. For the offence under Section 138 of the Act to be made out against the accused, the complainant must prove the following points, that:- “1. the accused issued a cheque on account maintained by him with a bank. 2. the said cheque had been issued in discharge, in whole or in part, of any legal debt or other liability. 3. the said cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date of cheque or within the period of its validity. 4. the aforesaid cheque, when presented for encashment, was returned unpaid/dishonoured. 5. the payee of the cheque issued a legal notice of demand to the drawer within 30 days from the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque. 6. the drawer of the cheque failed to make the payment within 15 days of the receipt of aforesaid legal notice of demand.” 7. The Act raises two presumptions in favour of the holder of the cheque. Firstly, in regard to the passing of consideration as contained in Section 118 (a) and secondly, a presumption that the holder of cheque receiving the same of the nature referred to in Section 139 discharged in whole or in part any debt or other liability. 8. Section 118 of the N.I Act provides: “Presumptions as to negotiable instruments: Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made (a) of consideration- that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration.” 9. Section 139 of the N.I. Act further provides as follows: “Presumption in favour of holder - it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.” 10. Section 139 of the N.I. Act further provides as follows: “Presumption in favour of holder - it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.” 10. For the offence under Section 138 of the Act, the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 have to be compulsory raised as soon as execution of cheque by accused is admitted or proved by the complainant and thereafter burden is shifted to accused to prove otherwise. These presumptions shall end only when the contrary is proved by the accused, that is, the cheque was not issued for consideration and in discharge of any debt or liability etc. The accused may rebut these presumptions by leading direct evidence and in some and exceptional cases, from the case set out by the complainant, that is, the averments in the complaint, the case set out in the statutory notice and evidence adduced by the complainant during the trial. Further, the burden may be discharged by the accused by showing preponderance of probabilities and the onus on the accused is not as heavy as it is on the complainant to prove his case. 11. From the aforesaid discussion, it becomes amply clear that the presumption of law, though rebuttable, works in favour of the complainant. 12. In the present case, the accused/ petitioner has admitted that the cheque in question bears his signature. So initial presumption as contemplated under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has to be inferred in favour of the complainant, so it is for accused to rebut the presumption raised under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the said Act and merely saying that the cheque in question was given by him to the complainant as a blank security cheque is not sufficient to rebut the presumption. 13. Section 20 of the Act declares that inchoate instruments are also valid and legally enforceable. In the case of a signed blank cheque, the drawer gives authority to the drawee to fill up the agreed liability. Thus, the accused can not dispute the contents of the cheque in question. 14. 13. Section 20 of the Act declares that inchoate instruments are also valid and legally enforceable. In the case of a signed blank cheque, the drawer gives authority to the drawee to fill up the agreed liability. Thus, the accused can not dispute the contents of the cheque in question. 14. The word "cheque" has been inclusively defined under Section 6 NI Act to include a bill of exchange drawn on a specified banker and not expressed to be payable otherwise than on demand... The words "bill of exchange" have been defined in Section 5 NI Act as "an instrument in writing containing an unconditional order, signed by the maker, directing a certain person to pay a certain sum of money only to, or to the order of, a certain person or to the bearer of the instrument." The expression 'negotiable instrument' has been defined in Section 13 NI Act as meaning a promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque payable either to order or to bearer. 15. So it is clear from the above definitions that an essential feature of a cheque is that it has to be signed by the maker. This signing of the cheque need not be by hand alone. After the amendment to Section 6 in 2002, the NI Act acknowledges that there can be an electronic cheque which can be "generated, written and signed in a secure system." Nevertheless, the signing of the cheque is indeed an essential feature. But what about the other material particulars? Can the word "cheque" occurring in Section 138 NI Act include a blank cheque which is signed by the drawer but the material particulars of which are left unfilled at the time it was handed over to the payee? While on the one hand Section 138 NI Act which contemplates a no fault liability has to be strictly construed as regard the basic ingredients which have to be shown to exist, it requires examination of the other provisions of the NI Act in order to ascertain if a cheque that was signed but left blank can, if the material particulars are subsequently filled up and presented for payment, still attract the same liability. 16. In the instant case, signature on cheque is admitted. 16. In the instant case, signature on cheque is admitted. According to the drawer of the cheque, amount and the name have been written not by the drawer but by somebody else or by the payee and tried to get it encashed. I am of the view, that even if by putting the amount and the name there is no material alteration on the cheque under Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, mere fact that the payee's name and the amount shown in the cheque is not in the handwriting of the drawer of the cheque that by itself is not a ground to contend that they are not validly issued or the cheques were not executed at all. 17. The Magistrate was, thus, justified in declining to refer the cheques for opinion of the handwriting expert where the signature of the drawer on the cheque was not disputed by the drawer. Similarly order of Sessions Judge was correct and does not suffer from any infirmity of law. 18. The offence under Section 138 is not a natural crime like hurt or murder. It is an offence created by a legal fiction in the statute. It is a civil liability transformed into a criminal liability, under restricted conditions by way of an amendment to the Act, which is brought into force only in 1989. The trial in the case has to be completed within 6 months as per amended Section 143 of N.I. Act. But trickster accused always tries to abuse the process of law and protract the trial without any sufficient reasons. If such like accused are not discouraged then very purpose and object of Act shall be forfeited. 19. For all the aforementioned reasons, this Court finds no infirmity in the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate declining to refer the cheques for the opinion of the handwriting expert and also order of the Court of Sessions Judge thereby dismissing the Revision petition of Petitioner. In present case, already more than 10 years has passed, but trial has not been completed, because accused/petitioner has always tried to prolong the matter. 20. The petition in hand accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.