TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1401X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for a certain amount. Section 20 of the Act declares that inchoate instruments are also valid and legally enforceable. In the case of a signed blank cheque, the drawer gives authority to the drawee to fill up the agreed liability. In the facts of the present case, though the respondent/accused had admitted that the signed cheque was issued by him but it was denied that the same was issued voluntarily by him in favour of the petitioner against due payment. On the other hand, it was sought to be contended that the cheque had been issued for the security purposes but was misused by the petitioner/complainant after having filled up the details by herself. But as per Section 20 of the NI Act, an individual is authorised to complete the inchoa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken from Cri.Rev. No. 56/14. As per the case of the petitioner/complainant, she advanced a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the respondent/accused and in turn the respondent-Hukum Singh issued a cheque No. 892743 dated 12/9/2011 in favour of the complainant/petitioner drawn on State Bank of India Branch Vidisha. When the petitioner presented the said cheque at the concerning Bank same came to be dishonoured for want of sufficient fund in the account of the holder of the cheque. The complainant then issued notice to the accused, demanding payment within fifteen days from the receipt of the notice failing which the respondent/accused was liable to be prosecuted for having committed offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in Criminal Case No. 232/12. Against the dismissal order dated 6/8/2013, the accused preferred Cri.Rev. No. 119/13 before the Revisional Court. The learned Revisional Court after considering the arguments of both the sides, allowed the prayer of the accused vide impugned order, assailed herein, hence, the revision before this court. 5. Similarly, same application under section 45 of the Evidence Act was filed in Cri. Case No. 475/12 by the respondent-accused Devkishan by alleging that Cheque No. 540211 was signed by him but other entries were full filled by the complainant, therefore, to verify the alleged act of the complainant an expert opinion may be called. The application was dismissed against which Cri. Rev. No. 118/13 was prefe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that this revision be dismissed. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that when complainant Sunita Dubey (PW-1) was examined during her cross-examination in para 18, it was admitted by her that the accused signed the cheque by using blue ink but remaining entries were written in black ink. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent/accused that complainant Sunita Dubey (PW-1) in her cross-examination denied the suggestion that blank space of the cheque was filled by herself by using black ink or through anybody else. In this connection learned counsel submitted that because blank portion of the cheque was not completed by the accused therefore, in such circumstances presumption cannot be drawn under section 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to any holder in due course for such amount: provided that no person other than a holder in due course shall recover from the person delivering the instrument anything in excess of the amount intended by him to be paid thereunder. 10. A bare perusal of the provisions shows that there is a clear mandate under section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to the effect that such an instrument can be negotiated by the maker thereof by simply signing and delivering the same to the holder in due course giving thereby ample authority to the latter to fill up the content of the instrument as intended by the maker thereof. Once the execution is admitted, it shall be taken that the cheque was issued by the accused in favour of the complainant to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l be a valid instrument in the eye of Law. 13. As regards the plea taken on behalf of the respondent by his learned counsel that in para 18 of cross-examination the complainant-Sunita Debey (PW-1) denied the suggestions made to her that blank space was filled by herself it means blank space of the cheque was not filled by the holder, therefore, benefit of section 20 of the NI Act cannot be given to the complainant/petitioner. This submission of the learned counsel is not tenable because it is a case of the respondent/accused himself that the blank space of the cheque was filled by the complainant/petitioner (holder of the cheque), and being so, proposal was made by the accused in cross-examination of the complainant. It makes no differen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
