1. The plaintiff in a suit for money is the appellant. The suit was dismissed by the trial court and the appeal filed by him met with the same fate.

2. According to the appellant, the respondent borrowed Rs.1,50,000/-on 20.8.2001, for which he issued Ext.A1 cheque dated 15.12.2001, which on presentment was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds, whereupon a notice was sent intimating the factum of dishonour. It was acknowledged by the respondent but no reply was sent. Hence the suit was filed.

3. The defendant refuted the allegations and contended that he had not borrowed Rs.1,50,000/- on 20.8.2001 nor did he issue Ext.A1 cheque. The contention that the said amount was borrowed by him for construction of his house was also denied. It was stated by him that a sum of Rs.75,000/-was borrowed by him from the appellant during December, 1997 and then a signed blank cheque leaf was handed over by him to the appellant. It was further contended that out of the sum of Rs.75,000/-, Rs.25,000/-and interest thereon was re-paid but the cheque was not returned. It was also stated that a reply was sent to the notice of dishonour received by him.

4. The plaintiff and three witnesses were examined as PWs 1 to 4 and Exhibits A1 to A6 were marked. DWs 1 to 3 were examined on the side of the defendants. The suit was initially decreed by the trial court. It was appealed against by the defendant. The appellate court remanded the matter for sending Ext.A1 to an expert for comparison of the handwriting. Though the order of remand was challenged in F.A.O. No.108/2009, that order was confirmed by this Court. After remand, Ext.C1 – the report of the expert was obtained. The learned Sub Judge, after considering the entire evidence, did not accept the plaintiff's case and hence the suit was dismissed. The lower appellate court concurred with the view taken by the trial court and thus the appeal was dismissed.

5. The following substantial questions of law have been framed:

(i) Whether filling up of a signed blank cheque leaf would amount to material alteration within the meaning of section 87 of the N.I. Act?

(ii) Whether section 20 of the N.I. Act applies to cheque as well?

(iii) Is there any implied authority to a person who receives a signed blank cheque leaf to fill up the same showing any amount as he likes and is it not, in such circumstances, necessary to prove the actual transaction?

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the court below should not have accepted Ext.C1 – the report of the expert to hold that “the person who wrote the subsequent writings marked Ext.A1 to A44 and S1 to S21 did not write the questions marked as Q1 to Q3”. The courts below also over looked the fact that no reply was sent to the notice of dishonour sent by the appellant, it is argued. The fact that the defendant used to borrow money from the appellant was admitted. He had also admitted receipt of Rs.75,000/- on an earlier occasion and those aspects should have been considered by the courts below in the background of the fact that Ext.A1 admittedly contains the signature of the respondent, it is further argued.

7. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant that the report was obtained from a private expert instead of sending the document to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The lower appellate court has given detailed reasons to negative the contentions so raised by the appellant. Evidence was given by the expert as to how he could compare the handwriting found in Ext. A1 with the admitted/specimen handwriting of the defendant. There was no request on the part of the plaintiff to send the disputed document and other documents containing the admitted handwritings of the defendant to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Therefore, it was observed by the lower appellate Court that it is only a desperate attempt made by the appellant to contend that P.W.4 was not competent to examine the document and to give a report. Th