IMPORTANT POINT:
There is a clear mandate under section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments 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 thereby ample authority to the latter to fill up the content of the instrument as intended by the maker thereof.

ORDER

B.D. Rathi, J.—As the grievance raised in the aforesaid two cases is identical and of similar nature, heard together and disposed of by this common order.

2. Both the revisions have been preferred under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1974 in short the ‘Code’ against an order dated 17/12/2013 passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge Vidisha district Vidisha (M.P.),in Criminal Revision Nos.118/2013 & 119/2013 whereby the applications of the respondents/ accused under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act were allowed by setting aside the orders of dismissal passed by the trial court dated 6/8/2013 in Criminal Case Nos. 232/12 and 475/12.

3. For facility of reference, the facts are being taken from Cri.Rev.No.56/14. As per the case of the petitioner/complainant, she advanced a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the respondent/accused and in turn the respondent-Hukum Singh issued a cheque No.892743 dated 12/9/2011 in favour of the complainant/petitioner drawn on State Bank of India Branch Vidisha. When the petitioner presented the said cheque at the concerning Bank same came to be dishonoured for want of sufficient fund in the account of the holder of the cheque. The complainant then issued notice to the accused, demanding payment within fifteen days from the receipt of the notice failing which the respondent/accused was liable to be prosecuted for having committed offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, but as the respondent/accused refused to pay even after receipt of the notice, a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed by the petitioner in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, against him.

4. During the course of proceedings of the trial in the complaint case, the accused moved an application under section 45 of the Evidence Act. The gist of the application is to the effect that the accused had taken only a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on credit out of which Rs. 96,000/- was paid by him to the complainant and he was further ready to pay balance amount of Rs. 54,000/-. He denied to have taken a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the complainant. He also denied to issue a cheque against the debt of Rs. 2,00,000/- in favour of the complainant on 12/9/2011. On the other hand, he stated that the complainant had taken two blank cheques from him as a security bearing No.221478 and 892743 and same were signed by him as account holder. It is submitted that the complainant after filling the date of 12/9/2011 and the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- in Cheque No. 892743 presented at the bank for encashment. Under these circumstances in order to verify the correctness of the alleged act of the complainant the respondent/accused moved an application under section 45 of the Evidence Act before the trial court for seeking the relief to examine insertion of the entries in the cheque through Handwriting Expert. Said application was rejected vide order dated 6/8/2013 passed in Criminal Case No.232/12. Against the dismissal order dated 6/8/2013, the accused preferred Cri.Rev.No.119/13 before the Revisional Court. The learned Revisional Court after considering the arguments of both the sides, allowed the prayer of the accused vide impugned order, assailed herein, hence, the revision before this court.

5. Similarly, same application under section 45 of the Evidence Act was filed in Cri. Case No. 475/12 by the respondent-accused Devkishan by alleging that Cheque No.540211 was signed by him but other entries were full filled by the complainant, therefore, to verify the alleged act of the complainant an expert opinion may be called. The application was dismissed against which Cri. Rev. No.118/13 was preferred. Same was allowed and the impugned order was passed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the application filed under section 45 of the Evidence Act it was admitted by the accused that the cheque was signed by him, therefore, the revisional court was in error to all