MILIND CHANDRAKANT KULKARNI v. SHIVAJI KISANRAO KADAM
Negotiable Instruments Act: Handwriting Dispute in Cheque Does Not Necessitate Handwriting Expert When Signature and Issuance Are Admitted; Section 20 Authority to Complete Incomplete Instruments.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:34237
Decision Date: 02-12-2025
List of Laws
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
- Facts: The petitioner/complainant challenged the Additional Sessions Judge's order that allowed a revision and quashed the JMFC's order, which had rejected the accused's application to send a cheque to a handwriting expert. The petitioner argued that the accused only disputed the handwriting on the cheque, not the signature or issuance, and thus sending it to an expert was unnecessary. The respondent argued that the cheque should be sent to a handwriting expert to ascertain the handwriting.
- Procedural Posture: This case is a Criminal Writ Petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, which had overturned the JMFC's order.
- Issue: Whether a cheque, where the signature and issuance are admitted but the handwriting of the contents is disputed, needs to be sent to a handwriting expert, considering Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881?
- Holding: No, the cheque does not need to be sent to a handwriting expert. The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the Additional Sessions Judge's order and restoring the JMFC's order.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act gives the payee the authority to complete an incomplete instrument. Since the accused admitted to signing and issuing the cheque, disputing only the handwriting of the contents, sending it to a handwriting expert is unnecessary. The court emphasized that "section 20 of the Act authorises the payee or the holders in due course to complete an incomplete negotiable instrument." The court also noted the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act that a cheque is issued for consideration and to discharge a liability, placing the onus on the accused to prove otherwise.
🔒 For Members Only