In the High Court of Kerela at Ernakulam
Crl. MC. No. 1310 of 2019(C)
Sandhya rani G.
State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor; M/S. XOTO CERAMICS PVT.LTD
Date of Judgement
13th March, 2020
The Hon’ble Mr Justice R. Narayana Pisharadi.
The petition was filed under Section 482 CrPC. challenging the order passed by the trial court refusing to send the cheque for examination of handwriting. It was regarding the complaint filed by M/s Xoto Ceramics Pvt. Ltd against the accused for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act. When the case reached the stage of defence evidence, the petitioner filed an application in the trial court for sending the cheque to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram to obtain opinion regarding the handwriting of the entries. The second respondent filed objection to the aforesaid application contending that the intention of the petitioner was only to protract the case and to cause delay in the disposal of the case. As per Annexure-A order, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for the opinion of the expert.
1. If the entries of the cheque are filed by some other person will it affect the validity of the cheque?
Arguments of the Petitioners:
- The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner/accused has no case that the cheque involved in the case does not bear her signature. The dispute is only with regard to the other entries in the cheque.
- Statement made by the complainant in the trial court states that the complainant has got no case that the accused herself wrote the entries in the cheque and the petitioner has also no case that she had filled up the cheque in her own handwriting.
- When the accused admits the signature in the cheque, it is immaterial whether some other person had made the entries in the cheque or filled it up. Even if some other person had filled up the cheque, it does not in any way affect the validity of the cheque.
Arguments of the Respondent:
- It was contended on behalf of respondent’s council that the intention of the petitioner was only to protract the case and to cause delay in the disposal of the case.
Decision of the SC
The Hon’ble Court relied upon the judgment of ‘Bir Singh vs. Mukesh Kumar’ (AIR 2019 SC 2446) and reiterated that it is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. When the accused admits the signature in the cheque, it is immaterial whether some other person had made the entries in the cheque/filled it up. Even if some other person had filled up the cheque, it does not in any way affect the validity of the cheque.
The court held that the intention of the petitioner/accused was only to protract the proceedings in the case and that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the trial court. The petition was dismissed accordingly.
“The views of the authors are personal“