2021 (8) TMI 375 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - signature in the cheque leaf is admitted - HELD THAT - The petitioner has filed this petition after seven years from the date of filing of the private complaint in C.C.No.32 of 2013. Only to drag on the case, the petitioner has come forward with this petition. When the signature and issuance of cheque are admitted by the petitioner, there is no necessity to send the entries for expert opinion. There is nothing sufficient enough to interfere with the order of the Judicial Magistrate - Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of petition to send the cheque for expert opinion in Criminal Revision Case.
2. Allegation of misuse of cheque by the defacto complainant.
3. Interpretation of Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
4. Citation of relevant Supreme Court judgment in Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar.
5. Delay in filing the petition and admission of signature on the cheque.
6. Application of presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis:
1. The Criminal Revision Case was filed to challenge the order dismissing the petition to send the cheque for expert opinion. The petitioner, the accused, alleged that the cheque was misused by the defacto complainant, who filed three criminal cases against the petitioner. The petitioner sought to prove that no consideration was passed based on the cheque and that it was filled up by the complainant. The respondent argued that the petitioner's admission of signature on the cheque implied liability under Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The respondent contended that the absence of a Presiding Officer in the Court was used as a delay tactic by the petitioner. The respondent highlighted the petitioner's admission of signature on the cheque leaf as a crucial point, indicating liability under Section 20 of the Act. The respondent cited the Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar judgment, emphasizing that the mere act of presenting a signed blank cheque to the payee does not invalidate the cheque, and the burden of proof lies on the accused to show the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt.

3. Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was invoked, stating that signing and delivering a blank or incomplete negotiable instrument gives authority to the holder to complete it. The Act imposes liability on the signer for the amount specified, unless proven otherwise. The respondent relied on this provision to argue that the petitioner's admission of signature on the cheque established liability, and the complainant was entitled to fill up the cheque under Section 139.

4. The judgment in Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar was cited to support the respondent's argument regarding the presumption under Section 139 of the Act. The Supreme Court's ruling emphasized that the act of voluntarily presenting a signed blank cheque to the payee creates a presumption of debt discharge, placing the burden of proof on the accused to rebut this presumption. The judgment clarified that the existence of a fiduciary relationship does not automatically negate the presumption under Section 139.

5. The delay in filing the petition after seven years was noted, with the Court suggesting it was a tactic to prolong the case. Given the petitioner's admission of signature on the cheque, the Court found no need to send the entries for expert opinion. The Court concluded that there was insufficient reason to interfere with the Judicial Magistrate's order, leading to the dismissal of the Criminal Revision Case.

6. In light of the arguments presented, the Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Case, upholding the Judicial Magistrate's order. The application of the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, supported by the petitioner's admission of signature on the cheque, played a pivotal role in the Court's decision. The connected Miscellaneous Petition was also closed as a result of the dismissal.