SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Shrihari P. Davare, J.
Avinash —Petitioner
versus
Miyasaheb Gramin Bigarsheti
Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd. —Respondent
Cri. Writ Petition No. 300 of 2012
Decided on 26.9.2012

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. P.S. Pawar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. D.G. Nagode, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Payee or holder in due course can complete an incomplete negotiable instrument.

Headnote:Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138 read with Section 20—Constitution of India—Article 226—Dishonour of cheque—Process issued—Petitioner has nowhere specifically denied signature on disputed cheque—Section 20 authorizes payee or holder in due course to complete an incomplete negotiable instrument—There was no necessity to send disputed cheque to hand writing expert for verification of hand writing and signature thereon—Trial court rightly rejected application preferred by petitioner—No error in impugned order—Writ Petition dismissed. (Paras 9 and 10)

       

JUDGMENT

Shrihari P. Davare, J.— Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself.

3. The petitioner herein is the original accused in criminal case bearing No. S.T.C. 494 of 2009, filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as “the said Act”), whereas the respondent is the original complainant therein. The factual matrix of the case, for deciding the instant writ petition, are as under:

4. The respondent Patsanstha has contended that the petitioner had applied for loan for the purpose of business and accordingly the petitioner has executed necessary documents. It is further contended that for repayment of the loan amount, the petitioner has issued a cheque No. 611005, dated 29.5.2009, for an amount of Rs. 2,57,295. It is further contended that the said cheque was presented for encashment on 13.6.2009. However, the said cheque was dishonoured and returned unpaid with a reason “funds insufficient”. Hence, the respondent issued notice to the petitioner on 22.6.2009. The petitioner replied the said notice on 24.6.2009. However, it is the contention of the respondent that the petitioner failed to pay the amount, involved in the cheque, to the respondent. Hence, the respondent filed complaint against the petitioner being S.T.C. No. 494 of 2009. The said complaint was verified by the respondent on 17.9.2009. Accordingly, the learned trial court issued process against the petitioner under Section 138 of the said Act. After service, the petitioner appeared in the said complaint and submitted bail bonds. Thereafter, the respondent filed affidavit of examination in chief below Exh.13 on 9.3.2010. The petitioner cross examined the respondent on 24.12.2010 and on 10.2.2011 and also adduced/produced his evidence and even statement of petitioner under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded.

5. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent had taken blank cheques from the petitioner at the time of grant of loan and the said cheques were misused by the respondent. Hence, the petitioner preferred an application below Ex.47 on 11.1.2012 before the learned trial court praying that the disputed cheque in question at Ex. 15 be sent to handwriting expert for verification of the handwriting and signature thereon. The respondent opposed the said application by filing reply. Accordingly, the learned trial court passed an order on the said application No. 13.2.2012 and rejected the said application observing that the accused has not specifically denied the signature on the cheque in question (Ex.15).

6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order 13.2.2012 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. the petitioner has preferred the present petition challenging the said order with the prayers as mentioned in the present petition.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent countered the said arguments and opposed the present petition vehemently, and submitted that the petitioner has nowhere specifically denied his signature on the disputed cheque in question at Ex.15. He also canvassed that Section 20 of the said Act authorizes the Payee or holder in due course of the cheque to complete an incomplete negotiable instrument and hence, it is submitted that there is no necessity to send the cheque in question to handwriting expert for verification of the handwriting of the said cheque, and to call expert’s opinion. It is further submitted that the application preferred by the applicant is only with an ulterior motive to protract the trial. Hence, it is submitted that the learned trial court has rightly rejected the application and no interference is warranted therein in the present writ petition. Accordingly, he urged that the present petition be dismissed.

8. I have perused the present petition, its annexures, substance of evidence annexed thereto, disputed chequ





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top