MILLIND CHANDRAKANT KULKARNI Vs. SHIVAJI KISANRAO KADAM

JUDGEMENT

(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 dtd. 18/6/2025, 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 dtd. 27/5/2024, 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 Sec. 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.