Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 610 (MP)

Archana Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2018-07-10

S.K.PALO

body2018
JUDGMENT : S.K. Palo, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 has been filed to set aside the order dated 10.08.2017, passed by JMFC, Katni, in Criminal Case No. 701330/2016 and order dated 19.03.2018, passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Katni, in Cr.R.No.103/2017, whereby the order of the trial Court disallowing the examination of Handwriting expert has been affirmed. 2. Bereft of the unnecessary details, the facts necessary for disposal of the petition are that, petitioner is facing trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, filed by the complainant/respondent. It is claimed that the respondent advanced Rs.2,50,000/- to the petitioner/accused and in lieu of the same, the petitioner-accused executed a cheque on 22.03.2016 for Rs.2,50,000/-. The said cheque was sent for encashment on 25.03.2016 at the IDBI Bank, Katni, but the same was dishonored. Hence, the respondent/complainant filed the criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Despite the fact that the petitioner/accused admitted the signature in the cheque, he claimed that it was extended as a security and not as a legal discharge of debt. The petitioner filed an application calling to examine the handwriting expert as regarding the contents of the cheque, which was denied by the learned trial Court as well as the revisional Court on the ground that the signature of the cheque is admitted, therefore, examination of handwriting expert is not necessary. 3. On behalf of the petitioner, it is claimed that the petitioner is challenging the cheque and wanted to adduce opinion of the handwriting expert as to the writing in the cheque. The petitioner claimed that it is not written by him but written by someone else. He was given the blank cheque to the respondent/complainant. Therefore, examination of handwriting expert is necessary for fair trial. In support of the contentions, the petitioner has placed reliance on Abhishek v. Ramesh report as 2013 (7) R.C.R. (Criminal) 3466 : 2012 (2) MPHT 19 . It is claimed that adducing evidence in support defence is a valuable right. Denial of that right means denial of fair trial. Since the blank cheque was issued, opportunity must be given to accused in terms of principle of natural justice. 4. It is claimed that adducing evidence in support defence is a valuable right. Denial of that right means denial of fair trial. Since the blank cheque was issued, opportunity must be given to accused in terms of principle of natural justice. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that a bare perusal of the provisions shows that there is a clear mandate under Section 20 of the Negotiable Instrument Act to the effect that such an instrument can be negotiated by the maker, thereof by simply signing and delivering the same to the holder in due course giving ample authority to the letter to fill up the contents of the instrument as intended by the maker thereof. Once the execution is admitted, it shall be taken that the cheque was issued by the accused in favour of the complainant towards the discharge of the liability. 5. Heard the rival contentions. Perused the record. The provision of Section 20 of the Negotiable Instrument Act make it clear that, the instrument may be wholly blank or incomplete in any particular in either case the holder has the authority to make or complete the instrument as negotiable one. 6. In this regard it would be appropriate to reproduce Section 20 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, which reads as follows: "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 to pay 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." 7. Thus, a blank cheque if given by the endorser, even then he cannot escape the liability. When the maker of the cheque admits his signature the endorser is liable for the same. Thus, a blank cheque if given by the endorser, even then he cannot escape the liability. When the maker of the cheque admits his signature the endorser is liable for the same. If the signature to a blank instrument is extended, the so signed is bound to the holder in due course even though the holder was authorized to feel for a certain amount. Section 20 of the Act declares inchoate instruments and also validly and legally enforceable. This view is fortified by the judgment rendered in the cases of Bhadoriya Tiles v. Ramkumar Singh Kushwah reported as 2011 (20) R.C.R. (Criminal) 217 : 2011 (4) MPHT 178 and Satyendra Upadhyaya v. Omprakash Rathore @ Japan Singh reported as 2010 (22) R.C.R. (Criminal) 567 : 2010 (5) MPHT 104 . 8. In the present case, it is admitted position that the cheque was signed by the petitioner/accused. Under section 20 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, makes it clear that, the instrument may be wholly blank or incomplete in any particular manner, the holder has authority to make or complete the instrument as a negotiable one. Therefore, the cheque is a valid instrument in the eye of law. It could be very well said that when the incomplete cheque was issued by the accused, it means accused has given prima facie authority to the holder thereof to make it complete and in such situation, if any further entry was made by the complainant/respondent, then the same cannot be examined through opinion by the handwriting expert. Therefore the present petition fails and is dismissed.