The admission of signatures on disputed cheques establishes liability, and it is not legally required that the cheques should be filled by the person who signed them.

ORDER

Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J. - Petitioner has come up with the present petition u/S. 482 of CrPC for setting aside the order dated 19/03/2021 passed by 13th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior (MP) in Criminal Revision No.331/2019, allowing the revision preferred by respondentcomplainant against the order dated 21/08/2019 passed by the Court of JMFC, Gwalior in Criminal Case No.241/2014, by which the Court of JMFC has dismissed the application filed on behalf of respondentcomplainant for sending disputed cheques to the FSL for determination of ''ink'' on the disputed cheques.

2. Factual matrix of the case in short is that the complainant/ respondent has filed a complaint u/S. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act [ in short '' NI Act''] alleging therein that he and the petitioner were having in friendly acquaintance with each other. According to complainant, he had lent a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the respondent and at the time of repayment of the same amount, the petitioner had issued two cheques, dtd. 25/08/2013 and 05/07/2013 respectively of Central Bank of India in his favour. During the encashment of said cheques, it was found that there was variation of three years in regard to writing of petitioner on the said cheques by ''ink''. Therefore, before the Court of JMFC an application was filed by respondent for sending the disputed cheques to the FSLfor determination of ''ink''. Summons was issued to the petitioner and matter was fixed for defence evidence and in defence, the petitioner examined himself and other witnesses as well as filed reply to complaint filed by respondent u/S. 138 of the NI Act.

3. After hearing both the parties, the Judicial Magistrate First Class dismissed application filed by respondent vide order dated 21/08/2019. Being aggrieved, respondent, thereafter, filed a revision before Revisional Court and same has been has set aside by Revisional Court vide impugned order dated 19/03/2021 by allowing application filed on behalf of respondent. Hence, this petition.

4. Challenging the impugned order passed by Revisional Court, it is submitted on behalf of petitioner that petitioner has specifically admitted his signature on disputed cheques before the Court of JMFC. If the cheques have been filled by another person, will not cause any illegality by drawing a presumption under Section 20 of NI Act. In the reply to the complaint u/S 138 of the NI Act, petitioner has specifically admitted the factum of signature on disputed cheques but Court of JMFC has raised a presumption u/S. 20 of the NI Act and Revisional Court while passing impugned order has utterly failed to consider that it is not legally required that the disputed cheques should be filled by the person, who has signed the same. It is nowhere prescribed in Section 20 of the NI Act that in case of Negotiable Instruments, entire body of instrument shall be written only by maker or drawer of instrument and once execution is admitted, it shall be assumed that the cheques were issued by accused in favour of the complainant towards discharge of liability, even in case where the cheques filled by some other person. It is further submitted that the disputes cheques bear signature of petitioner which reflects from the report given to Police Authorities as well as the application submitted by petitioner to the Bank concerned but Revisional Court has failed to consider this aspect as there is no expert opinion required in terms of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding determination of age of ''ink'' by adopting any scientific method. Hence, it is prayed that present petition deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order passed by the Revisional Court.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported impugned order and submitted that there is no illegality committed by Revisional Court while allowing the revision filed by respondent. Hence, prayed for dismissal of this petition.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, peru