A cheque signed by the drawer authorizes the payee to complete the instrument, affirming liability unless disproven. The court emphasized the presumption of consideration under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

JUDGMENT :

Abhay J. Mantri, J.

1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned advocates for both parties.

2. The petitioner/complainant being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 18-06-2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur in Cri Revision Application No.65 of 2024, whereby allowed the revision and quashed and set aside the order dated 27-05-2024, passed by the learned JMFC, Latur below Exh.97 in SCC No.468/2016 whereby rejected the application of the accused for sending the cheque in question to the Handwriting Expert.

3. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the respondent does not dispute the issuance of the cheque and the signature thereon. But he is only disputing the handwriting in the cheque, and for that purpose, it is not necessary to send the cheque to the Handwriting Expert. As per section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act [for short ‘N. I. Act’] when the person who issued the cheque by signing the instrument, in that case, the payee has the authority to fill up the same to complete the instrument. Therefore, for that purpose, it is not necessary to send the cheque to the Handwriting Expert. The learned JMFC has rightly passed the order. However, the learned Additional Sessions Court erred in allowing the revision. Therefore, he urged setting aside the impugned judgment and order.

4. To buttress his submissions, he has relied on the judgment in Avinash Vs Miyasaheb Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha 2012 SCC OnLine Bom 1410 and pointed out para 10 of the same and submitted that in view of the observations made therein, the petition is liable to be allowed.

5. On the other hand, the learned advocate for the respondent vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Court is just and proper, and no interference is required in it. During the argument he has taken to me through the testimony of the PW-2-Shankar and submitted that during cross-examination he admitted that the accused has written the cheque in his presence and signed the same and therefore, the respondent wants to send the cheque to the Handwriting Expert to ascertain the writing on the said cheque; whether same was in the handwriting of the respondent or any other person written the same.

6. During the argument, he has also taken me through the para 10 to 14 of the impugned judgment and order and submitted that in view of the mandate in judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court in Kalyani Baskar Vs M. S. Sampornam (2007) 2 SCC 258 the learned Sessions Judge has rightly passed the order and therefore, no need to interfere in it in the writ jurisdiction. Hence, he urged the dismissal of the petition.

7. It is pertinent to note that the respondent is not disputing the issuance of the cheque and his signature thereon, but only disputing the handwriting of the contents therein. For that purpose, he wants to send the cheque to the Handwriting Expert; however, in view of the mandate in section 20 of the N.I. Act, I do not find substance in his contention that the cheque in question is required to be sent to a handwriting expert.

8. I would like to reproduce S