Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 1151 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURTDishonor of Cheque - funds insufficient - tampering with the cheque - petitioners has argued that the blank signed cheques of the petitioners have been misused by the respondent-complainant by filling in denomination in the body of the cheque in his own writing and at the hands of his own agents - fraudulent transaction - Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - HELD THAT:- A perusal of Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 clearly shows that when a wholly blank or incomplete negotiable instrument is handed over to a person, the drawer thereby gives a prima facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete a negotiable instrument for any amount specified therein. It is thus evident from a perusal of Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 that an instrument, signature whereupon is not denied, does not become void merely because of the same having been filled-up by a different ink or different handwriting. Whether the case of the petitioners shall be severely prejudiced on account of failure on the part of the petitioners to lead evidence of a handwriting expert? - HELD THAT:- The defence set up by the petitioners is that he had not filled in the cheque, however, assuming it to be so, the same would not in any manner impact the case projected by the complainant. It is evident from a perusal of the complaint that it is not the case set up by the respondent-complaint that the cheque in question had been filled in by the petitioners-accused and then handed over - the petitioner No.2 himself claims to have not filled in the body of the cheque and it was blank and signed. The said fact is not denied by the respondent-complainant and it is not the affirmative case of the complainant that the petitioner No.2 had given duly filled cheque, in his own handwriting, which may require any evidence to contradict. In the wake of the specific plea of the petitioners that the blank signed cheque had been handed over to the respondent-complainant and in the absence of any claim by the respondent-complainant that a duly filled cheque, complete in all particulars, had been handed over by the accused, a mere examination of a handwriting expert to prove a fact not pleaded or claimed by the complainant is not likely to advance any interest of justice. The same is only likely to delay the final adjudication of the trial. Further, the trial Court has duly discussed the said aspects and also the contentions raised by the petitioners. There is no illegality or perversity or miscarriage of justice occasioned by the said order - Petition dismissed.
|