IMPORTANT POINT
Since signature in cheque not disputed, no need for verification of handwriting by which name of payee and amount filled up.

Ashim Kumar Roy, J.—The petitioner is facing his trial on a charge under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.

2. In course of trial, the petitioner although admitted his signatures in the cheques, but claimed the name of the payee and the amount of money were not filled up by him.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the blank cheques containing only the signatures of the petitioner was kept with the complainant as security with a clear understanding that same shall only be utilized, if situation so arises and with a prior intimation to the petitioner, but out of sheer mala fide, the complainant filled up those blank portions of the cheques, namely, the name of the payee and the amount and presented the same for encashment without his knowledge.

4. It is vehemently contended that those cheques were not issued by the petitioner in discharge of any legally enforceable debts or liabilities. It is then contended under the aforesaid background, a prayer was made before the learned Trial court for sending the cheques to the handwriting experts for verification, whether the name of the payee and the amount were written in the handwriting of the petitioner or not, but the Trial court, without giving any importance to the contention of the petitioner, turned down such prayer. It is submitted the order impugned be quashed and the prayer of the petitioner be allowed.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the impugned order and other materials on record.

6. It appears from a perusal of the records that the order whereby the trial court rejected the petitioner’s prayer for sending the cheques to the hand-writing expert was challenged before the Sessions Court in a revision. However, the petitioner lost in the revision and the order passed by the trial court was upheld.

7. This is, therefore, a second revision and in view of specific statutory bar under sub-section (3) of section 397, the entertainment of the same is not permissible, unless it is found that the order impugned is illegal, unreasonable, perverse and brings out a situation, which is completely an abuse of the process of court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any such infirmity nor this court on careful scrutiny of the order has found the same for it self.

8. In the case at hand the signature in the cheques has not disputed by the petitioner as that of him, but he claimed that the name of the payee and the cheque amount was not filled up by him. The Section 20 of the Negotiable Instrument Act defined such a cheque an “inchoate stamped instrument”. According to the said provision, where one person signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accordance with the law relating to negotiable instrument, 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 amount covered by the stamp. The provision further provides the person so signing shall be liable upon such instrument, in the capacity in which he signs 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.

9. On a plain reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is abundantly clear even if an incomplete negotiable instrument, signed by the drawer delivers to anyone, it authorizes the holder thereof to make or complete the same as the case may be and also the person so signing shall be liable upon such instrument, in the capacity in which he signed the same to any holder thereof in due course for payment of such amount. Therefore, even if a bill of exchange, wh