This application is directed against the order dated 20.3.2012 passed in C-1 case no. 1327 of 2010 whereby and whereunder prayer made by the petitioner, to send the cheque to a handwriting expert for verification of the handwriting appearing over the cheque in question with the admitted handwriting of the petitioner, was rejected.

2. Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is the case of the petitioner that one blank cheque bearing no.168519 having signature of the petitioner over it got lost which anyhow came in possession of the complainant who by putting material particulars including the amount over it utilized it for lodging a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act by taking a plea that the cheque had been given by the petitioner as against debt but the said cheque on its deposit got dishonoured. Thus, it becomes a case of material alteration and thereby the said material alteration renders the said cheque as void in terms of the provision as contained in Section 87 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and therefore, in order to prove that there is material alteration, an application was filed for verification of the handwriting of the material particulars with the admitted handwriting of the petitioner. In other words, for verification of those writings whereby the amount has been written with the handwriting of the petitioner but the court below rejected the prayer, though it was quite necessary for just decision of the case and thereby the court did commit illegality in rejecting the prayer.

3. As against this, Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 submits that the petitioner has never denied his signature over the cheque and in that situation, there would be presumption in terms of the provision as contained in Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act that negotiable instrument was made for consideration. That apart, presumption would always be there as to date, as to time of acceptance and its transfer till contrary is proved by its drawer. In that event, when the petitioner has been accepting its signature over the cheque in question, the petitioner can never be allowed to deny that the said cheque was never for consideration or in other words, the petitioner had never put the amount over the cheque and therefore, prayer made by the petitioner for sending the said cheque before the handwriting expert for verification of the handwriting was wholly misconceived and hence, the trial court has rightly rejected the said prayer.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 has relied upon a decision of the Delhi High Court rendered in a case of Ravi Chopra vs. State and another decided on 13th March, 2008 and also in a case of Satyendra Upadhyaya vs. Omprakash Rathore @ Japan Singh [(2010) 5 MPHT 104] as well as in a case of S. Gopal vs. D. Balachandran [2008(1) Bankman 346 (Mad.)].

5. Thus, on one hand, the case which has been made by the petitioner is that since material particulars over the body of the cheque is not in the handwriting of the petitioner, it would be a case of ‘material alteration’ in terms of Section 87 of the Negotiable Instrument Act whereas case of the complainant-opposite party no.2 is that once the signature is admitted material particulars as to consideration, time, date and its transfer would be presumed to be correct unless contrary is proved.

6. Therefore, in the context of the submission one needs to take notice of the provision of Section 87 of the Negotiable Instrument Act which reads as follows:

Section 87-Effect of material alteration-Any material alteration of a negotiable instrument renders the same void as against anyone who is a party thereto at the time of making such alteration and does not consent thereto, unless it was made in order to carry out the common intention of the original parties; Alteration of indorsee – And any such alteration, if made by an indorsee, discharges his in