Admission of signature on a cheque establishes liability under Section 138 of the NI Act, regardless of who filled in the cheque's details.

This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for setting aside the order dated 16/01/2024 passed in SCNIA No.144/2015 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hatod, Distt. Indore and also order dated 11/05/2024 passed by XXII Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Revision No.58/2024, wherein dismissing the application of the applicant / accused filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred as, 'NI Act') was registered on the complaint of respondent Vikram against the applicant. At the stage of defence evidence on 23/12/2023, applicant filed an application under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for examination of disputed cheque by handwriting expert on the ground that except signature other contents and ink used be examined by the handwriting expert and report may be called for from the handwriting expert for proving his defence.

3. The application was opposed by the complainant on the ground that signatures on the disputed cheque is not in dispute as the applicant has accepted signature on the disputed cheque in the examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.

4. After giving opportunity of hearing, the application was dismissed by the trial Court and when it was assailed before the Sessions Judge by way of revision, the same was also dismissed by a detailed order.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial Court as well as the revisional Court has failed to appreciate the case of the complainant in its right perspective. He has never denied signature on the disputed cheque, but his case is that the cheque was stolen from his car and it has been misused by filling up its contents, therefore, by way allowing the petition, the impugned order may be set aside.

6. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.

7. During the course of argument on query raised by this Court regarding the lost cheque, learned counsel has fairly admitted that though he had lodged a complaint regarding loss of his cheque but no action was taken by the police.

This in itself reveals that there was no substance in the application. It can be inferred that the story of disputed cheque stolen from the car of the accused, is cooked up at the defence stage.

8. From the date of marking appearance before the learned trial Court, the accused was well aware regarding handwriting and ink used for filling up the disputed cheque, but did not take any action for getting it examined by the handwriting expert at the earliest available opportunity. It is not in dispute that the complaint case filed at the behest of the respondent is pending since 2015, but the application under Section 45 was filed at the fag end of the trial on 23/12/2023. It in itself reveals that as a apart of delay tactics this application was filed. Once the signature on the disputed cheque are admitted, even if it is filled up by some other person, it will not make any difference as far as the ingredients of offence under Section 138 of NI Act are concerned.

9. Section 20 of the NI Act refers provision regarding instruments. In this provision it has been mentioned that one person signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accordance with the law relating to negotiable instruments then in force, and either wholly blank or having written thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument, he thereby gives prima facie authority to 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.

10. The Apex Court in the case of Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar reported in (2019) 4 SCC 197 keeping in view the provisions of Sections 20, 138 and 139 of t