2015 (1) TMI 1471 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - legally enforceable debts/liabilities or not - trial court rejected the petitioner's prayer for sending the cheques to the hand-writing expert - section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - HELD THAT - It is abundantly clear even if an incomplete negotiable instrument, signed by the drawer delivers to anyone, it authorizes the holder thereof to make or complete the same as the case may be and also the person so signing shall be liable upon such instrument, in the capacity in which he signed the same to any holder thereof in due course for payment of such amount. Therefore, even if a bill of exchange, which includes a cheque, if delivers to any person singed by the drawer, no payment against such cheque can be denied on the plea the same was delivered to the person was partially blank. Since the signature in the cheque has not been disputed there is no need for verification of the handwriting by which the name of. the payee and the amount has been filled up. It appears that the proceeding is pending since 2012 for more than 2 and half year although it is the legislative intent that the court shall make all endeavours to conclude the trial relating to such offence within six months from the date of filing of the complaint. This case has already reached the stage of examination of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. The criminal revision has no merit and accordingly stands dismissed.

Issues:
1. Rejection of the petitioner's prayer for sending cheques to handwriting experts for verification.
2. Interpretation of section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
3. Legality of the trial court's decision in rejecting the petitioner's prayer.
4. Validity of the second revision under section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
5. Delay in concluding the trial proceedings.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Rejection of Handwriting Verification Prayer
The petitioner claimed that the blank cheques, with only his signatures, were misused by the complainant who filled in the payee's name and amount without authorization. The petitioner requested the trial court to send the cheques to handwriting experts for verification, but the trial court rejected this prayer. The High Court noted that the signature on the cheques was not disputed by the petitioner. As per section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, even if an incomplete negotiable instrument is signed and delivered, the holder is authorized to complete it, and the signer is liable to the holder for the specified amount. Therefore, the High Court upheld the trial court's decision to reject the prayer for handwriting verification.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 20 of the Act
Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act defines an incomplete cheque as an "inchoate stamped instrument." It provides that delivering a paper stamped in accordance with the law, either blank or incomplete, gives authority to the holder to complete it for any amount specified, with the signer being liable to the holder for that amount. The provision ensures that no payment can be denied against a cheque delivered even if partially blank, as long as it is signed by the drawer. The High Court's analysis emphasized the significance of the signer's liability and the authority granted to the holder to complete the instrument.

Issue 3: Legality of Trial Court's Decision
The petitioner's counsel contended that the trial court's refusal to send the cheques for handwriting verification was improper. However, the High Court found no infirmity in the trial court's decision. The court highlighted that the petitioner did not dispute his signature on the cheques, making the handwriting verification unnecessary. The High Court affirmed the trial court's ruling, emphasizing the legal principles governing negotiable instruments and the signer's liability.

Issue 4: Validity of Second Revision
The High Court addressed the second revision filed by the petitioner, noting the statutory bar under section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court clarified that a second revision can only be entertained if the impugned order is illegal, unreasonable, or an abuse of court process. Since no such infirmity was found in the order, the High Court dismissed the revision, emphasizing the limitations on successive revisions.

Issue 5: Delay in Trial Proceedings
The High Court expressed concern over the delay in the trial proceedings, which had been pending for over two and a half years. Despite legislative intent for timely resolution of such cases, the trial had not concluded. The High Court directed the Magistrate to expedite the trial, setting specific timelines for the examination of the accused, witness testimonies, and judgment delivery to ensure swift resolution of the case.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the criminal revision, upheld the trial court's decision, interpreted the relevant legal provisions, addressed the delay in proceedings, and provided specific directions to expedite the trial process.

← Previous Next →