Back
2008(1) Bankmann 346 (Mad.)
MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. Jeyapaul, J.
S. Gopal —Petitioner
versus
D. Balachandran —Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 1658 of 2007 and M.P. No. 1 of 2007
Decided on 22.1.2008
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. N. Manokaran, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. S. Jayakumar, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Section 20 of the NI Act will have no application to blank cheques issued after signing by the drawer.
Headnote:Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 20 and 138—Prosecution for dishonour of cheque—Petitioner drawer of cheque filed petition under Section 45 of Evidence Act to send disputed cheque for comparison by expert to determine the age of ink of signature found in disputed cheque—Defence plea was that petitioner issued blank cheque with signatures thereon but same was filed and misused—Trial Court rejected application—Revision—Section 20 of the Act would not apply to cheques—No bar for drawer of cheque to give authority to third person to fill up the cheque signed by him for purpose of negotiating the same—Age of ink could not be determined by expert with scientific accuracy—No reason to interfere with impugned order. (Paras 6, 10 and 15)
Result: Revision dismissed.
M. Jeyapaul, J.—The Revision is directed against the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in C.M.P. No. 2915 of 2007 filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the disputed cheque for handwriting expert’s opinion.
2. The petitioner is an accused in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Erode. He filed a petition under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to send the disputed cheque for comparison by an expert to determine the age of the ink of the signature found in the disputed cheque marked as Ex. P1 before the Trial Court. It is his contention that the signature found in Ex. P1 has been put in a different ink from that of the other particulars filled in the cheque. It is his further contention that he issued blank cheques and pronotes with his signature therein. But, the same has been filled and misused by the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed for sending the disputed cheque, Ex. P1 to the Forensic Laboratory at Hyderabad to determine the age of the ink of the signature of the petitioner. The Trial Court has rejected such a plea on the ground that there is no necessity to send the disputed cheque for expert’s opinion as the signature found therein had been categorically admitted by the petitioner.
3. The points that arise for determination are:
(i) Whether the scope of Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies to blank cheque signed by the drawer.
(ii) Whether a blank cheque signed by the drawer can be filled up by a holder thereof.
(iii) Whether the disputed document can be sent to an expert for ascertaining the age of the signature found therein.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submits that a holder of a cheque has no authority to fill up the blank cheque signed by the drawer, inasmuch as Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has no application to a cheque issued by a drawer. He would further contend that a cheque will have to be filled up and signed only by the drawer as Section 20 would apply only to the other instruments viz., pronotes and bill of exchange. As the petitioner seriously disputes the negotiability of the cheque in question inasmuch as the particulars found in the cheque were filled up later on by the respondent to suit his convenience, a fair opportunity will have to be given to the petitioner to rebut the claim of the respondent.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that this Court has held that a blank cheque can be filled up by a holder in due course. When the signature found in the cheque is admitted, the petitioner cannot challenge the particulars filled up by the holder in due course in the cheque. At any rate, he would submit that there is no perfect science to determine the age of the ink used in a document.
6. Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 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 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.
A bare reading of Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would go to show that it would apply to only a stamped instrument viz., pronote and bill of exchange and not to the cheques. As per Section 20 of the Negotiable In
