A cheque does not need to be in the handwriting of the drawer for it to be valid under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 04.11.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sikar (for brevity "the learned Revisional Court") in CIS No.52/2023 whereby, while dismissing the revision petition, the order dated 16.09.2023 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases), Sikar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned trial Court") in CIS No.284/2021 dismissing an application filed by the accused-petitioner (for short "the petitioner") under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for brevity "the Act of 1872"), has been affirmed.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner, who is facing trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1881"), filed an application under Section 73 of the Act of 1872 stating therein that since, it is alleged in the complaint that name of the complainant in the cheque was filled in by the accused himself which is factually incorrect, the cheque may be subjected to examination by the handwriting expert. The application was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 16.09.2023 which has been affirmed by the learned Revisional Court vide order dated 04.11.2023 while dismissing the revision petition preferred by the petitioner.

3. Assailing the impugned order, the only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that not only in the complaint; but, in his statement also, the complainant has stated that the cheque was handed over to him by the petitioner duly filled in. He submits that in view of denial of the petitioner to have filled in name of the complainant in the cheque, it was incumbent upon the learned trial Court to have allowed the application filed by him for subjecting the cheque in question to examination by the handwriting expert.

4. Heard. Considered.

5. While dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, the learned trial Court has observed that since, the petitioner has not denied that the subject cheque did not bear his signature, in view of provisions of Section 20 of the Act of 1881, it was not required to subject the cheque for examination by the handwriting expert. The revision petition preferred there against has also been dismissed by the learned Revisional Court vide order dated 04.11.2023. It was observed by the learned Revisional Court that since, it was admitted by the petitioner during the course of arguments that the subject cheque was signed by him and the amount was also filled in by him; prayer of the petitioner for subjecting the cheque to examination by the handwriting expert was not liable to be accepted.

6. This Court does not find the order impugned to be suffering from any such illegality or perversity so as to warrant interference of this Court under Section 482 CrPC after dismissal of the revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 16.09.2023 inasmuch as it is trite law that cheque is not required to be in the handwriting of the drawer.

7. Resultantly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.

8. However, looking to the long life of the pending litigation, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite its disposal.