2018 (1) TMI 1693

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ation filed by the respondent No. 1, thereby allowing the application filed by the respondent No. 1 for referring the disputed cheque to the handwriting expert. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner has filed a complaint against the respondent No. 1 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of cheque. During trial, the petitioner examined Mr. Surendra Gaonkar and his cross-examination on behalf of the respondent No. 1 was concluded on 11/04/2015. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 filed an application on 13/04/2015 for referring the disputed cheque to the Handwriting Expert. It was contended that the subject cheque was a blank cheque signed by the respondent No. 1 and was obtained by the petitioner as a security.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the conclusion that the application was filed with a view to delay the proceedings. It is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge was in error in interfering with the said order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, particularly when there was no irregularity in the exercise of the discretion by the learned Magistrate. On behalf of the petitioner, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Prakash Sevantilal Vora v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.; (2011)0 Cr.L.J 2207 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of I.C.D.S. Ltd. v. Beena Shabeer;: (2002)6 SCC 426. It is submitted that as held by the Supreme Court in the case of ICDS Ltd. (supra), it is not necessary that the body of the cheque has to be filled in b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tention is that a blank cheque was obtained by the petitioner by way of a security. In this regard, it would be significant to note that the respondent No. 1 has neither issued any reply to the notice nor has entered into the witness box in his defence. The application for referring the subject cheque to the Handwriting Expert was filed on 13/04/2015 and shortly thereafter, the respondent No. 1 closed his side on 15/04/2015. The application does not mention as to under which provision, the same is filed. During the course of arguments at bar, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 submitted that it is filed under Section 243(2) of Cr.P.C. Section 243 of Cr.P.C. speaks about the evidence for defence. Subsection (2) of Section 243 of Cr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der that the application was filed in order to delay the proceedings. The question is whether the learned Sessions Judge was justified in interfering with the said discretionary order, in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It may be significant to note that the learned Sessions Judge, in para 6 of the impugned judgment, has accepted that "there is no hard and fast rule that the body of the cheque has to be filled in by the accused to make him liable for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and it may also be that when a blank cheque signed by the accused is issued, there is an implied authority to fill in the cheque". Once having accepted this and in the face of the specific finding by the Magistrate that the applicatio....