The admissibility of evidence through a Handwriting Expert to prove the misuse of negotiable instruments is not guaranteed, especially when the petitioner does not dispute their signatures on the instruments.

M.L. Mehta, J. (Oral) :—

In all these petitions, the petitioner assails the order of learned ASJ dated 02.04.2012, whereby the criminal revision petitions against the orders of M.M. dated 11.7.2011 were dismissed. The respondent/complainant had filed as many as nine complaints against the petitioner under Section 138, N.I.Act. before the court of M.M. In all those cases, the petitioner, who was the accused filed applications for leading evidence of Handwriting Expert. The said applications were dismissed by the M.M. vide his orders dated 11.7.2011. The said orders of M.M. were challenged by way of criminal revisions before the ASJ, which came to be dismissed vide the impugned order dated 2.4.2012.

2. The main plea that has been taken to assail those orders is that the complainant had filled up the contents of the cheques and the pro-notes given to the respondent/complainant, who was his partner and that those were misused by filling up the blanks therein, and thus, he was entitled to prove the same by way of the opinion of Handwriting Expert.

3. I have gone through the orders of M.M. dated 11.7.2011 and also the impugned order.

4. It is seen that similar pleas were taken before the M.M. as also before the ASJ.

5. Though, it was held in the case of T.Nagappa Vs. Y.R. Muralidhar, (2008) 5 SCC 633 on which reliance was placed before the court of ASJ, that the accused should be given fair trial to lead evidence in his defence, but, at the same time, it was also held that the court being the master of the proceedings must determine as to whether the application of the accused in terms of Section 243 (2) CrPC is bona fide or not or whether thereby accused intends to bring on record a relevant material. Taking as it is that the blanks in the cheques and the pro-notes were filled up by the respondent/complainant, still petitioner was not entitled to prove the same by way of opinion of Handwriting Expert. In the case of Ravi Chopra Vs. State and Another, 2008(2) JCC (NI) 169, Delhi, it was held by this Court after discussing Section 87 and Section 20 of the N.I.Act:

“A collective reading of the above provisions shows that even under the scheme of the NI Act it is possible for the drawer of a cheque to give a blank cheque signed by him to the payee and consent either impliedly or expressly to the said cheque being filled up at a subsequent point in time and presented for payment by the drawee. There is no provision in the NI Act which either defines the difference in the handwriting or the ink pertaining to the material particulars filled up in comparison with the signature thereon as constituting a ‘material alteration’ for the purposes of Section 87 NI Act. What however is essential is that the cheque must have been signed by the drawer. If the signature is altered or does not tally with the normal signature of the maker, that would be a material alteration. Therefore as long as the cheque has been signed by the drawer, the fact that the ink in which the name and figures are written or the date is filled up is different from the ink of the signature is not a material alteration for the purposes of Section 87 NI Act”.

6. Further, in the case of P.S.A. Thamotharan Vs. Dalmia Cements (P) Ltd., 2005 (1) JCC (NI) 96 Madras, it was held that to have a validity of Negotiable Instrument such as cheque, it is not mandatory and no law prescribes that the body of the cheque should also be written by the signatory to the cheque. A cheque could be filled up by anybody, if it is signed by the account holder of the cheque, accepting the amount mentioned therein.

7. In view of this dictum and law as laid down in the afore-cited two judgments, and keeping in view the true spirit of Section 20 and 87 of the N.I.Act, the proof of filling up of these negotiable instruments by the respondent or any person, would not be of any relevance. The petitioner has not disputed his signatures on the said cheques and even in crossexamination, has admitted this fac