TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 991X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rant for interference with the well considered order passed by the Trial Court. Thus, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate is confirmed. The criminal revision case stands dismissed. The connected Miscellaneous Petition also stands dismissed. - Muttaci Jeyapaul, J. For the Appellant : N. Manokaran, Adv. For the Respondents : S. Jayakumar, Adv. ORDER Muttaci Jeyapaul, J. 1. The revision is directed against the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in C.M.P. No. 2915 of 2007 filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the disputed cheque for handwriting expert's opinion. 2. The petitioner is an accused in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrumen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the blank cheque signed by the drawer, inasmuch as Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has no application to a cheque issued by a drawer. He would further contend that a cheque will have to be filled up and signed only by the drawer as Section 20 would apply only to the other instruments viz., pronotes and bill of exchange. As the petitioner seriously disputes the negotiability of the cheque in question inasmuch as the particulars found in the cheque were filled up later on by the respondent to suit his convenience, a fair opportunity will have to be given to the petitioner to rebut the claim of the respondent. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that this Court has held that a blank cheque can be fille ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nk pronote and bill of exchange delivered to him after properly signing therein by the maker of the instrument. But, Section 20 will have no application to the blank cheques issued after signing by the drawer. 7. This Court in Rajendran v. Usharani 2001 LW (Crl.) 319 has observed that no law prescribes that in case of any negotiable instrument, the entire body of the instrument shall be written only by the marker or drawer of the instrument. Once the execution is admitted, it shall be taken that the cheque was issued by the accused in favour of the complainant towards the discharge of the liability even in a case where the cheque was filled up by some other person. 8. It is to be noted that there is no reference to Section 20 of the N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... que signed by him, such an instrument also is valid in the eye of law. There is no bar for the drawer of a cheque to give authority to a third person to fill up the cheque signed by him for the purpose of negotiating the same. 11. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, referred to an authority in Kalyani Baskar v. M.S. Sampoornam (2007) 2 SCC 258 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court observed as follows: Section 243(2) is clear that a Magistrate holding an inquiry under the Cr.P.C. in respect of an offence triable by him does not exceed his powers under Section 243(2) if, in the interest of justice, he directs to send the document for enabling the same to be compared by a hand-writing expert because even in adopting this course, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tage when the prosecution closes its evidence after examining the witnesses and the accused has entered upon his defence. The appellant in this case requests for sending the cheque, in question, for the opinion of the hand-writing expert after the respondent has closed her evidence, the Magistrate should have granted such a request unless he thinks that the object of the appellant is vexation or delaying the criminal proceedings. In such circumstances, the order of the High Court impugned in this Appeal upholding the order of the Magistrate is erroneous and not sustainable. In a case where the signature of the cheque was in dispute in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Honourable Supreme Court has obse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the ratio referred to above, if an old ink is used by the person, who assisted the drawer who had already put his signature in the cheque, to fill up the matter, no useful purpose will be served if such a cheque is analysed by the expert for rendering an opinion. 15. It is found that the age of the ink cannot be determined by an expert with scientific accuracy. Further, the use of old ink manufactured long ago will definitely create a dent in the opinion furnished by an expert. Therefore, there is no necessity for sending the disputed cheque admittedly signed by the petitioner to an expert for his opinion. The order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Erode in C.M.P. No. 2915 of 2007 in C.C. No. 1287 of 2006 does not suffer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
