TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person who signs the cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque has been issued for payment of debt or discharge of liability. He undertakes the risk that the instrument remains to be an inchoate instrument. In such an event, the age of the ink may not matter much. However, it is also made clear that, merely because the accused application seeking expert's opinion regarding the age of the ink is rejected, that itself would not take away the defence of the accused in its entirety. However, the accused would be still at liberty to put forth his defence to rebut the presumption, if any, formed in favour of the complainant. Petition dismissed. - CRIMINAL PETI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r is that, when it is the specific defence of the accused in the trial Court that the cheque in question though was bearing the signature of the accused, but the same was issued not to the complainant, but to one M/s. Mahaveera Traders at Kampli as a security in a cloth purchase transaction. However, the present complainant has misused the said cheque and has instituted the present case. In such an event, when the complainant has filled the contents of the cheque by himself, it was necessary to determine the age of the ink, as such, the said application was made. But the trial Court without appreciating the said fact has erroneously rejected his application. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that, the accused has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bserve that, when the accused has admitted during the course of examination that the cheque was duly signed by him, the High Court had erred in allowing the application for examination of a private handwriting expert. 8. In the instant case also, the defence of the accused is that, the cheque was signed and issued by him, however, to a different establishment called M/s.Mahaveer Traders, but not to the present complainant. Section 20 of the N.I. Act makes it amply clear that the person who signs the cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque has been issued for payment of debt or discharge of liability. He undertakes the risk that the instrument remains to be a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
