The main legal point established is that a holder in due course is entitled to fill up a cheque as per Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the petitioner's plea to compare the writings on the cheques and promissory notes was unnecessary.

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 07.03.2012 passed in CMP No. 853 of 2012 in C.C. No. 120 of 2011 by which the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act was dismissed.

2. The respondent/complainant has filed C.C. No. 120 of 2011 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act contending that on 30.10.2010 the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.35,000/- and issued a cheque No. 600975 dated 29.11.2010 drawn on ICICI Bank, Tiruvannamalai Branch as well as a promisory note. Further, on 20.11.2010, the accused borrowed further sum of Rs.50,000/-for which he issued a cheque No.057200 dated 11.12.2010 drawn on ICICI Bank, Tiruvannamalai Branch as well as a promisory note. Thus, the accused had borrowed a total sum of Rs.35,000/-. On the request of the accused, the complainant presented the cheques for collection, but both the cheques were dishonoured on the ground that the account has been closed long back. After issuing a statutory notice on 29.12.2010 to the accused, the complainant filed the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. Pending the calander case, the petitioner/accused filed C.M.P. No. 853 of 2012 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act praying to send the Cheques for comparision to ascertain as to (i) whether the writings in the two cheques as well as the promisory notes have been written by one and the same person (ii) whether the ink by which the cheques were signed in both the cheques as well as the writings thereon as well as the promisory note have been written by one and the same ink and (iii) to ascertain the age of the ink. According to the petitioner/accused, even though he had signed the cheques as well as the promisory notes, the contents thereon have been filled by two different persons in the two cheques as well as promisory notes and therefore, it has to be ascertained as to who was the person who had filled the cheques as well as the promisory notes, through an expert. This said application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Court below against which the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that as per the version of the respondent/complainant, the contents in both the cheques as well as the promisory note were written by him, whereas, the writtings in both the cheque and the promisory note differ and therefore it has to be ascertained as to whether it was the petitioner who had filled up both the cheques as well as the promisory note or by some other person. This is very significant to prove that the petitioner/accused had issued the cheques in blank, however, the court below erroneously dismissed the petition without assigning any valid reasons.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant would contend that the petitioner had admitted the issuance of the cheques as well as the promisory note and the execution of the same. Therefore, it is unnecessray for the Court below to direct the forensic experts to find out as to who was the person who filled up the cheques and promisory notes. Further, the petitioner never denied the execution of the cheques or his signature in the cheques as well as the promisory note. As per Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, even a holder in due course can fill up the cheque and it is legally permissible. When the petitioner had admitted the entrustment of the cheques as well as promisory notes, it is not open to him to file the petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to compare the writtings in the cheque and the promisory note. Therefore, the Court below is right in rejecting such a prayer sought for by the petitioner and he prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Revision Case.

6. I heard the counsel for both sides and perused the materials placed on record. According to the petitioner/accused, he issued the cheques in blank a