9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 581X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r as a blank signed cheque as security when the husband of the petitioner/accused availed a loan of Rs. 1.75 lakh from the complainant. It is the fairly specific contention of the petitioner/accused that the cheque was issued as a blank signed cheque as security for due repayment of the said amount of Rs. 1.75 lakh. It is the further specific contention that the other entries in the cheque were not made by the accused, but by the complainant that cheque is being misutilised to stake a totally false and fanciful claim for Rs. 6.25 lakh, it was contended. 2. Trial has commenced. The complainant's evidence is already over. At the stage of defence evidence the petitioner filed an application that the cheque may be sent to the expert. Tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of execution. Admission of signature does go a long way in the attempt to prove execution of a document. But the nice legal distinction between admission of signature and admission of execution must always be borne in mind. Admission of signature may in an appropriate case persuade the Court to draw permissive presumptions of fact under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. But certainly the right of the accused to contend that a blank signed cheque was misutilised by the payee cannot be taken away by such mere admission of signature. Ultimately when the evidence is appreciated the Court shall have to consider whether admission of signature coupled with the other circumstances is sufficient to prove execution. But the right of the accused is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rse find another inadequacy in the application (copy of which is produced as Annexure-A) in that a forthright request that the genuineness of the handwriting in the cheque may be compared with the admitted handwriting of the accused is not made at all. The learned Counsel has taken me through the affidavit filed in support of the said petition and contends that the innocuous omission is not significant and it is only an innocent inadequacy in the preparation of the petition. In the petition there is a prayer for only ascertaining the age difference between the signature on the one hand and the other entries in the cheque on the other. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that what the petitioner really wants is comparison of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion according to me does not at all lay down a proposition that a defence that a blank signed cheque was misused by the complainant is not available to the accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. That decision cannot also help the complainant in the facts and circumstances of this case. 10. In the result- (a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. (b) The learned Magistrate is directed to forward the cheque to the expert for comparison as indicated earlier if the condition stipulated is complied with by the petitioner . 11. It is made clear that I have not intended to express any opinion on the disputed facts involved. The learned Magistrate must consider the mate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
