Oral Judgment:

1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned advocates for both parties.

2. The petitioner/complainant being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 18-06-2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur in Cri Revision Application No.65 of 2024, whereby allowed the revision and quashed and set aside the order dated 27-05-2024, passed by the learned JMFC, Latur below Exh.97 in SCC No.468/2016 whereby rejected the application of the accused for sending the cheque in question to the Handwriting Expert.

3. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner does not dispute the issuance of the cheque and the signature thereon. But he is only disputing the handwriting in the cheque, and for that purpose, it is not necessary to send the cheque to the Handwriting Expert. As per section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act [for short ‘N. I. Act’] when the person who issued the cheque by signing the instrument, in that case, the payee has the authority to fill up the same to complete the instrument. Therefore, for that purpose, it is not necessary to send the cheque to the Handwriting Expert. The learned JMFC has rightly passed the order. However, the learned Additional Sessions Court erred in allowing the revision. Therefore, he urged setting aside the impugned judgment and order.

4. To buttress his submissions, he has relied on the judgment in Avinash Vs Miyasaheb Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha 2012 SCC OnLine Bom 1410 and pointed out para 10 of the same and submitted that in view of the observations made therein, the petition is liable to be allowed.

5. On the other hand, the learned advocate for the respondent vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Court is just and proper, and no interference is required in it. During the argument he has taken to me through the testimony of the PW-2-Shankar and submitted that during cross-examination he admitted that the accused has written the cheque in his presence and signed the same and therefore, the respondent wants to send the cheque to the Handwriting Expert to ascertain the writing on the said cheque; whether same was in the handwriting of the respondent or any other person written the same.

6. During the argument, he has also taken me through the para 10 to 14 of the impugned judgment and order and submitted that in view of the mandate in judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court in Kalyani Baskar Vs M. S. Sampornam (2007) 2 SCC 258 the learned Sessions Judge has rightly passed the order and therefore, no need to interfere in it in the writ jurisdiction. Hence, he urged the dismissal of the petition.

7. It is pertinent to note that the respondent is not disputing the issuance of the cheque and his signature thereon, but only disputing the handwriting of the contents therein. For that purpose, he wants to send the cheque to the Handwriting Expert; however, in view of the mandate in section 20 of the N.I. Act, I do not find substance in his contention that the cheque in question is required to be sent to a handwriting expert.

8. I would like to reproduce Section 20 of the N.I. Act as under:

                   20. Inchoate stamped instruments.—

                   Where one person signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accordance with the law relating to negotiable instruments then in force in India, and either wholly blank or having written thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument, he thereby gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete, as the case may be, upon it a negotiable instrument, for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp. The person so signing shall be liable upon such instrument, in the capacity in which he signed the same, to any holder in due course for such amount; provided that no person other than a holder in due course shall recover from the person delivering the instrument anything in excess of the amount intended by him to be paid thereunder.

9. In view of the mandate in section 20, the person so signing the cheque/instrument shall be liable upon such instrument, in the capacity in which he signed the same, to any holder in due course for such amount. Similarly, the payee of the cheque can fill up the blank space on the said cheque to complete the said instrument within the meaning of section 20 of the N.I. Act. It gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete, as the case may be. Therefore, for that purpose, a cheque is not required to be sent to the Handwriting Expert.

10. In addition, there is a presumption under section 118 of the N.I. Act to presume that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated, or transferred, was accepted, endorsed, negotiated, or transferred for consideration as to date, time of acceptance. Likewise, under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, there is a presumption that unless the contrary is proved, the holders of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.

11. Apart from this, a conjoint reading of sections 20, 87 and 139 of the N.I. Act makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of debt or in discharge of liability. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled by any person other than the drawer if the drawer duly signs the cheque. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of Section 138 would be attracted. Also, Section 118 establishes that there is a presumption that the cheque was issued to discharge liability unless and until it is disproved by the accused. Therefore, in my view, without considering the said provisions, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed the said order. Thus, said order cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law.

12. Moreover, if a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill in the amount and other particulars to complete the said instrument. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus still lies on the accused to prove that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence.

13. Besides, even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under section 139 of the NI Act, in the absence of cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of the debt.

14. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner/accused has signed the cheque and handed it over to the respondent/complainant. The only dispute is with regard to the handwriting of the contents therein. In such circumstances, in my view, the judgments relied on by the learned advocate for the petitioner in Kalyani Baskar (supra) and M/s Surveka v. M/s S.R. Retail zone are hardly of any assistance in support of his contention. On the contrary, in my opinion, in view of the mandate in Section 20 of the N.I. Act and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Ramesh Vs K. Kothandaraman Manu/SC/0259/2024 and the Bir Singh Vs V. Mukeshkumar, Manu/SC/0154/2019 are applicable.

15. In para 13 of the impugned judgment, the learned Addi. The Sessions Judge has cited the judgment in Kalyani (supra) wherein the accused disputed the issuance of the cheque and his signature thereon; in the case at hand, the accused, i.e., the respondent, does not dispute the issuance of the cheque and his signature thereon. Therefore, the observations made in the Kalyani (supra) are hardly of any assistance to the respondent in support of his contention to send the cheque to the Handwriting Expert to ascertain whose handwriting is on the said cheque.

16. In para 10 of the impugned judgment the learned Judge has referred the judgment in M/s Surveka Distributors Pvt. Ltd. Vs S. R. Retail Zone Pvt. Ltd. (CRLMS No. 219/2012 decided on 05-02-2018) wherein the accused had not disputed the signature on the cheque but has disputed the information like date and amount therein therefore, referred to the Handwriting Expert. However, having considered the mandate in section 20 of the N.I. Act, the holders of the cheque are empowered to complete an incomplete negotiable instrument. Therefore, it is not necessary to send the same to the Handwriting Expert. On the contrary, the judgment in Avinash (supra) of this court categorically in para 10 observed that “section 20 of the Act authorises the payee or the holders in due course to complete an incomplete negotiable instrument. Hence, in that view of the matter, there was no necessity to send the disputed cheque in question to the handwriting expert for verification of the handwriting and signature thereon.” As such, in my view, the dictum laid down in Avinash’s case is applicable in the case in hand instead of the observations made in M/s. Surveka Distributors Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Therefore, I do not find substance in the contention of the learned advocate for the respondent in that regard.

17. I have gone through the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate in para 4 has categorically observed that ‘in the light of section 20 of the N. I. Act it is clear that where a person has not denied his signature on the disputed cheque, then it is not necessary to send the cheque to the handwriting Expert to verify that whether remaining entries in the cheque are in the handwriting of the signatory of the cheque or not.’ The said findings appear to be just and proper. However, the learned Sessions Court, without considering the mandate in section 20, erred in reversing the said order without assigning any cogent reason. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has not recorded reasons for reversing the findings of the learned Magistrate as to how the order passed by her is illegal or perverse, and therefore, the findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are not sustainable in the eyes of the law and are liable to be set aside.

18. In the wake of the above discussion, the order dated 18- 06-2025 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Latur, appears contrary to the mandate in section 20 of the N.I. Act and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Ramesh Vs K. Kothandaraman Manu/SC/0259/2024 and the Bir Singh Vs V. Mukeshkumar, Manu/SC/0154/2019 therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.

19. As a result, the petition is allowed in terms of the prayer clause-(B). The impugned judgment and order dated 18-06-2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, in Cri Revision Application No.65 of 2024, is hereby quashed and set aside, and the order dated 27-05-2024, passed by the learned JMFC, Latur, below Exh. 97, in SCC No.468/2016, is restored and confirmed. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. The rule is made absolute. Inform the learned concerned courts accordingly.

LATER ON:

12. The learned advocate for the accused submitted that the accused is ready to deposit the entire cheque amount in the trial court. So, he may be permitted to deposit the same in view of the judgment in Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babulal H., (2010) 5 SCC 663.

13. His statement is accepted.

14. In view of the statement, the accused is permitted to deposit the entire cheque amount before the learned Magistrate, subject to the outcome of the proceedings. As and when he deposits the said amount before the learned Magistrate, it should be kept in a fixed deposit till the conclusion of the trial, and thereafter, the Learned Magistrate should pass an appropriate order in that regard.