Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mangi Lal Tak vs State Of Raj. & Anr on 16 August, 2012
Author: Sandeep Mehta
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
ORDER
S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.1489/2010 Mangi Lal Tak Vs. State of Raj. & Anr.
Date of order : 16.8.2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA Mr. Deelip Kawadia, the petitioner.
Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, P.P. Mr. V.S.Choudhary, for the respondent No.2.
<><><> The instant misc. petition is directed against the order dated 6.10.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Udaipur in revision, whereby he has quashed the order dated 4.5.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Mavli, District Udaipur.
The petitioner is the complainant in the matter. He had filed three separate complaints against the respondent No.2 for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. During pendency of the complaint, the respondent No.2 moved an application under Section 45, 73 of the Evidence Act for having the handwriting on the cheque examined by the handwriting expert. The Magistrate rejected the application filed by the respondent No.2 by his order dated 4.5.2010. The said order was assailed in revision and the revisional Court reversed the order passed by the Magistrate and directed that the cheques in question be sent to the handwriting expert for comparison.
Learned counsel for the petitioner took this Court through the evidence recorded at the trial including the statement of the respondent No.2 Heera Lal, wherein Heera Lal has admitted that he gave the cheques in question to the petitioner after signing the same. Learned counsel thus submits that by virtue of the presumption available under Section 118 of the N.I.Act, the petitioner was very much entitled as a holder of the cheque in due course to fill in the blank spaces in the cheques and present the same for payment. He thus submits that the order passed by the learned Magistrate was absolutely justified and the revisional Court has comitted grave error in interfering with the well reasoned order passed by the Magistrate.
Per contra, Shri V.S.Choudhary learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has vehemently opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the signed blank cheques in question were procured from the respondent accused fraudulently and thus, the accused was rightly allowed by the revisional court the opportunity to have the writings on the cheque compared by the handwriting expert. He thus submis that the order passed by the revisional Court does not call for any interference.
After having considered the arguments advanced at the bar and after going through the orders impugned and upon considering the evidence recorded in the trial court, it is evident that the respondent No.2 has admitted that he gave the cheques in question to the petitioner after signing the same. There is also an agreement available on the record, which was entered into between the parties subsequent to the filing of the complaint, wherein the respondent No.2 has made an admission about the cheques in question having been given to the petitioner and the petitioner being entitled to receive the amount against the said cheques.
In view of the aforesaid facts and looking to the provisions of Section 118 of the NI Act, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner very much had a right to fill in the empty spaces of the cheques even if the cheques were given in blank to him. The holder of a signed blank cheque in due course is entitled to fill in the blanks and present the cheques against legally enforceable dues.
In view of the aforesaid facts, the order passed by the revisional court reversing the order passed by the Magistrate and directing that the cheques in question be sent to the handwriting expert for comparison cannot be sustained.
The misc. petition is accordingly allowed and the order dated 6.10.2012 passed by the learned revisional court is quashed and the order dated 4.5.2010 passed by the learned Magistrate is restored. Learned Magistrate is directed to expedite the trial of the case and to complete the same within a period of four months from today.
Stay petition is also disposed of.
(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.
/tarun/