The provisions of Section 20 of the N.I. Act cover Cheques and give authority to the holder to fill up the Cheque, making it unnecessary to send the documents for the opinion of the Handwriting Expert.

1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the Accused aggrieved over the dismissal of the Petition under Section 45 of the Evidence Act seeking to send the cheque for the opinion of the Handwriting Expert, by the Order dated 21.2.2013 made in C.M.P. No. 200 of 2013 in S.T.C. No. 1952 of 2003 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai.

Facts:

2. The Respondent/Complainant filed the private Complaint against the Accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Complaint was based on the Cheque dated 16.6.2003 for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-, which when presented was dishonoured for want of funds. Even after statutory Notice, amount due under Cheque was not paid and hence, the Complaint was laid.

3. The Accused disputed the liability on the ground that he had borrowed only a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in the year 1997 from the Complainant towards the Vehicle Loan, which was also endorsed in the R.C. Book. The Cheque was issued only as a security for the loan transaction. Even after the clearance of the loan, the Cheque issued towards security has been misused and the Complaint has been falsely laid. The Accused examined two witnesses, namely, DW1 - Bank Manager, who has spoken about the issuance of Cheque in the year 1997 and DW2 - Regional Transport Officer, who has spoken about the entries made in the Registration Certificate regarding the Loan transaction with Guru Finance, of which the Complainant was the Managing Director. The Accused has admitted the signature in the Cheque, but disputed the contents/writings under Ex.P1, Cheque. At the same time, the Accused has admitted the writings under Ex.P2-Challan as that of him. On this basis, the Accused filed a Petition seeking to compare Ex.P2 containing the admitted handwriting/signature of the Accused with that of Ex.P1, Cheque, under which though signature is admitted, the writings are disputed. The Petition was dismissed, as against which the present Revision Petition has been filed.

4. The Petition has been dismissed on the ground that as the signature in the Cheque is admitted and Section 20 of the N.I. Act gives authority to the holder to fill up the Cheque, it is not necessary to send the documents for the opinion of the Handwriting Expert. This order is under challenge.

5. It would be relevant to point out the two issues that are sought to be referred to expert opinion:

(1) Whether the Accused himself has filled up the contents or writings of Ex.P1-Cheque; and

(2) Whether the writings in the Challan-Ex.P2 and the writings in Ex.P1-Cheque are that of the same person.

6. The learned Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant pointed out that already the Accused has taken the documents to the Handwriting Expert and after getting the opinion, has examined the expert also and therefore, the present Petition is unwarranted. The learned Counsel for the Accused met the contention by contending that, even though on a prior occasion, Expert Opinion has been sought for and Expert has been examined, the reference was not correctly/accurately/appropriately addressed to the Expert and therefore, the Expert Opinion became useless.

7. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Accused is that Section 20 of the N.I. Act, which gives authority to the holder to fill up the negotiable instrument is not applicable to Cheque and therefore, the dismissal of the Petition by the Magistrate is illegal. It is relevant to quote Section 20 of the N.I. Act:

“20. Inchoate stamped instrument.—Where one person signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accordance with the law relating to negotiable instruments then in force in India, and either wholly blank or having written thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument, he thereby gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete, as the case may be, upon it is negotiable instrument, for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered ???y the stamp. The person so