The drawer of a cheque authorizes the holder to fill-up the other entries, and the penal provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would be attracted if the cheque is otherwise valid.

ORDER

1. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 29/12/2021 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Gohad, District Bhind in an unregistered Criminal Revision No......../2021, by which the revision filed by the applicant against the order dated 2/12/2021 passed by JMFC, Gohad, District Bhind in RCT No.110/2013 has been rejected as not maintainable.

2. The facts of the case are that the applicant is facing trial for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It appears that the applicant moved an application for sending the disputed cheque to the handwriting expert for examination of his signatures. The said application was allowed by order dated 14/2/2018. The respondent being aggrieved by the said order preferred a revision, which was registered as Criminal Revision No.3/2018, and the said revision was dismissed by order dated 12/9/2019 on the ground that the order under challenge is an interlocutory order. Furthermore, it was also observed that no valuable right of the respondent was violated by the Trial Court by passing the order dated 14/2/2018. Thereafter, it appears that the applicant filed another application for examination of other entries on the cheque by a handwriting expert. By order dated 2/12/2021 the said application was rejected.

3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Court, the applicant preferred a revision, which has been dismissed as not maintainable.

4. It is submitted that against the order dated 14/2/2018, the Revisional Court had entertained the Criminal Revision, but now the Revisional Court has dismissed the revision on the ground that the order under challenge is an interlocutory order.

5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

6. From paragraph 14 of the order dated 12/9/2019 passed in Criminal Revision No.3/2018, it is clear that the Revisional Court had held that the revision is not maintainable as the order under challenge is interlocutory in nature. However, it is further observed in paragraph 15 that no valuable right of the revisionist was violated. Furthermore, the counsel for the applicant could not point out as to how the order passed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act would not be interlocutory in nature.

7. Be that as it may.

8. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, the Trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that it is not necessary to send the other entries of the cheque to the handwriting expert. The counsel for the applicant could not point out any illegality in the said order. Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act reads as under:-

20. Inchoate stamped instruments.-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 a negotiable instrument, for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp. The person so signing shall be liable upon such instrument, in the capacity in which he signed the same, to any holder in due course for such amount; provided that no person other than a holder in due course shall recover from the person delivering the instrument anything in excess of the amount intended by him to be paid thereunder.

9. Thus, where the drawer of the cheque issues a cheque under his signatures, then he also authorizes the holder to fill-up the other entries. The Supreme Court in the case of Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar reported in (2019) 4 SCC 197 has held as under:-

33. A meaningful reading of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act including, in particular, Sections 20, 87 and 139, makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the c