2022 (4) TMI 1151 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - funds insufficient - tampering with the cheque - petitioners has argued that the blank signed cheques of the petitioners have been misused by the respondent-complainant by filling in denomination in the body of the cheque in his own writing and at the hands of his own agents - fraudulent transaction - Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - HELD THAT - A perusal of Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 clearly shows that when a wholly blank or incomplete negotiable instrument is handed over to a person, the drawer thereby gives a prima facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete a negotiable instrument for any amount specified therein. It is thus evident from a perusal of Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 that an instrument, signature whereupon is not denied, does not become void merely because of the same having been filled-up by a different ink or different handwriting. Whether the case of the petitioners shall be severely prejudiced on account of failure on the part of the petitioners to lead evidence of a handwriting expert? - HELD THAT - The defence set up by the petitioners is that he had not filled in the cheque, however, assuming it to be so, the same would not in any manner impact the case projected by the complainant. It is evident from a perusal of the complaint that it is not the case set up by the respondent-complaint that the cheque in question had been filled in by the petitioners-accused and then handed over - the petitioner No.2 himself claims to have not filled in the body of the cheque and it was blank and signed. The said fact is not denied by the respondent-complainant and it is not the affirmative case of the complainant that the petitioner No.2 had given duly filled cheque, in his own handwriting, which may require any evidence to contradict. In the wake of the specific plea of the petitioners that the blank signed cheque had been handed over to the respondent-complainant and in the absence of any claim by the respondent-complainant that a duly filled cheque, complete in all particulars, had been handed over by the accused, a mere examination of a handwriting expert to prove a fact not pleaded or claimed by the complainant is not likely to advance any interest of justice. The same is only likely to delay the final adjudication of the trial. Further, the trial Court has duly discussed the said aspects and also the contentions raised by the petitioners. There is no illegality or perversity or miscarriage of justice occasioned by the said order - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Dismissal of application seeking permission to compare writing on cheques.
2. Misuse of blank signed cheques leading to complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
3. Argument for the examination of a handwriting expert to establish innocence.
4. Interpretation of Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
5. Impact of failure to lead evidence of a handwriting expert on the case.
6. Allegations of fraudulent transaction and denial of fair trial.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the dismissal of an application seeking permission to compare writing on cheques by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indri. The petitioners, aggrieved by this order, filed petitions against the respondents. The cheques in question were used in a different ink than the signatures, leading to disputes regarding misuse and fraudulent transactions.

2. The respondent-complainant, a sole proprietorship concern, filed complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging dishonored cheques due to insufficient funds. The petitioner-accused claimed that their blank signed cheques were misused, necessitating the comparison of writings to establish innocence. The petitions aimed to seek justice and fair trial opportunities.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued for the examination of a handwriting expert to prove the misuse of cheques and fraudulent activities. The denial of this opportunity was deemed as potentially leading to a failure of justice and denial of a fair trial to the petitioners, emphasizing the importance of establishing innocence through expert analysis.

4. The judgment delves into the interpretation of Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which outlines the authority given when a blank or incomplete negotiable instrument is handed over. The section clarifies the liabilities and responsibilities concerning such instruments, emphasizing the significance of signatures and the completion of negotiable instruments.

5. The impact of failing to lead evidence of a handwriting expert on the case was scrutinized. Despite the defense set up by the petitioners regarding the misuse of blank signed cheques, the absence of evidence contradicting the complainant's claims raised questions about the necessity of expert analysis. The court assessed the implications of such examinations on the trial proceedings and the pursuit of justice.

6. The judgment concluded that the petitions lacked merit and were likely filed to delay the trial proceedings. It emphasized the absence of illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice in the dismissal of the application seeking permission to compare writings on the cheques. The decision aimed to uphold the integrity of the trial process and prevent unnecessary delays.