9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1878X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant in three different cases filed against the respondent No. 1 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the N.I. Act, for short). It is contended that three cheques were issued by the respondent No. 1, towards legally enforceable liability, which were dishonoured on account of insufficient funds, which led the petitioner to proceed against the respondent No. 1, under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 4. According to the respondent No. 1, he had obtained a hand loan of Rs. 25,000/- from the petitioner and had agreed to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 10% per month. It is contended that by way of security, the respondent No. 1 had handed over five blank cheques, duly signed by him. It is contended that althou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... war Rao and Another, reported in (2009) 14 SCC 677. It is next submitted that Section 138 of the N.I. Act does not require that the cheque should be filled in by the accused. It is thus, submitted that when the signature on the cheque was admitted, the learned Magistrate had no reason or justification, for sending the cheques for the opinion of the handwriting expert. The learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Shri Prakash Sevantilal Vora v. State of Maharashtra and Another, M [2011] 0 Cr.L.J. 2207. It is therefore, submitted that the impugned order be set aside. 8. On the contrary, it is submitted by Mr. Lobo, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 that, the respondent No. 1 had come with a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een, that it was found that the second applications was filed with an intention to delay the disposal of the matter. In the present case, earlier application was found to be premature. In my view, the present case would be clearly distinguishable on facts. 10. In the case of Shri Prakash Sevantilal Vora (supra), a perusal of para 17 of the judgment would show that the application was filed at a belated stage, which was rejected by the learned Magistrate. It was found that if it is the defence of the accused that blank cheque was given as a security, whether any authority to fill in the contents of the cheque was given, would have to be decided after evidence is led by both the parties. In the facts of that case, it was found that it was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
