Second revision bar and inchoate signed cheque doctrine limit handwriting examination in a cheque dishonour prosecution.

A second criminal revision is barred under section 397(3) CrPC unless the impugned order shows illegality, perversity, unreasonableness, or abuse of process. In a prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a signed and delivered cheque left blank as to payee and amount is treated as an inchoate instrument under section 20, giving the holder prima facie authority to complete it. Where the drawer admits the signature, that circumstance alone does not justify sending the cheque for handwriting examination. The challenge to the order therefore failed, and the lower proceedings were to be concluded expeditiously.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the criminal revision was maintainable as a second revision in view of the statutory bar; (ii) whether, in a prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a signed cheque with blanks in the payee's name and amount could be sent for handwriting examination when the drawer admitted his signature.

Issue (i): whether the criminal revision was maintainable as a second revision in view of the statutory bar

Analysis: A second revision is barred by section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, unless the impugned order is shown to be illegal, unreasonable, perverse, or to amount to abuse of the process of court. No such infirmity was demonstrated in the impugned order.

Conclusion: The second revision was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed.

Issue (ii): whether, in a prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a signed cheque with blanks in the payee's name and amount could be sent for handwriting examination when the drawer admitted his signature

Analysis: Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 treats a signed and delivered incomplete negotiable instrument as conferring prima facie authority on the holder to complete it. Since the drawer admitted the signature on the cheque, the filling up of the payee's name and amount did not by itself justify handwriting verification.

Conclusion: The request for sending the cheques to a handwriting expert was rightly rejected.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the trial court's order failed, and the proceedings below were directed to be concluded expeditiously.

Ratio Decidendi: A signed and delivered blank cheque constitutes an inchoate instrument under section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the holder is authorised to complete it; a second revision is barred under section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 unless exceptional illegality or perversity is shown.

---