M.D. RAMAKRISHNAIAH Vs. JAVAREGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is accused of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NI Act' for brevity). In the course of the proceedings, before the Trial Court, the petitioner had set up a defence that though he had issued a cheque signed in blank, it was not meant to be utilised for the purpose of the transaction claimed by the respondent. It is his allegation that without any consideration and without any legal liability, the respondent herein had misused the cheque leaf that was issued duly signed by him and has been filed up indicating a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as being the amount for which the cheque had been issued and it is on that basis that the complaint has been filed. The petitioner had filed an application before the Trial Court seeking appointment of a finger print expert to declare that the cheque was filled up by some other person other than the petitioner, though the signature was admitted and the Court below having rejected that application, the petitioner had approached this Court. This Court disposed of the petition filed by the petitioner with an observation that after completion of the evidence in the matter, the petitioner was at liberty to move the Trial Court over again seeking appointment of a handwriting expert to furnish his opinion, if it was so warranted. Such an application having been made after the evidence was completed, the Court below has rejected the application. It is that which is sought to be questioned in this petition seeking quashing of the order of the Court below.

(2.) Admittedly, the petitioner had signed the cheque in question. It is his defence that it was issued as a security for due repayment of certain sums of money which was duly repaid. The cheque was being misused by the complainant while having falsely filled up the cheque for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-. In the above circumstances, if the petitioner admits his signature while disputing the handwriting on the cheque leaf, which difference would be apparent to the naked eye, there is no need for the Court to seek the assistance of a handwriting expert. It is always the privilege of the Court in seeking such assistance, if necessary, to appoint one. Therefore, the petitioner's claim as a matter of right to seek that the cheque leaf be referred to a handwriting expert, and that request having been rejected by the Court below, cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or without application of mind. Admittedly, if the cheque leaf is not filled up by the petitioner in his own hand and if it is discernable to the naked eye, no opinion of a handwriting expert is necessary. If on the other hand the petitioner claims that he has repaid the amount that was due and the cheque was issued as a security and that there was no legal liability outstanding, the burden of proof is on the petitioner to establish the same. Nothing would turn on the handwriting expert's opinion that the handwriting on the cheque leaf is different from the handwriting of the petitioner, if his signature is admitted on the cheque leaf. Therefore, the petition is rejected.