Case Note & Summary
The petitioner/complainant filed a criminal writ petition challenging the judgment and order dated 18-06-2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur in Criminal Revision Application No.65 of 2024. The revisional court had allowed the revision and quashed the order dated 27-05-2024 passed by the learned JMFC, Latur below Exh.97 in SCC No.468/2016, whereby the JMFC had rejected the accused's application for sending the cheque to a Handwriting Expert. The petitioner argued that the respondent/accused did not dispute the issuance of the cheque or his signature thereon, but only disputed the handwriting in the body of the cheque. Relying on Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the petitioner contended that when a person signs and issues a cheque, the payee has the authority to fill up the instrument to complete it. Therefore, sending the cheque to a Handwriting Expert was unnecessary. The petitioner relied on the judgment in Avinash Vs. Miyasaheb Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha, 2012 SCC OnLine Bom 1410. The respondent opposed the petition, arguing that the revisional court's order was correct and that the handwriting in the body was disputed, requiring expert opinion. The High Court analyzed Section 20 of the NI Act and held that once the drawer admits his signature, the payee is authorized to fill in the amount and other details. The court found that the revisional court had erred in allowing the application for expert opinion. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, and restored the order of the JMFC rejecting the application for sending the cheque to the Handwriting Expert.
Headnote
A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 20 - Handwriting Expert - When the drawer admits his signature on a cheque but disputes the handwriting in the body, the payee is authorized under Section 20 to fill up the instrument. Therefore, sending the cheque to a Handwriting Expert is not necessary. The revisional court erred in allowing the application for expert opinion. (Paras 3-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the accused is entitled to send the cheque to a Handwriting Expert when the signature on the cheque is admitted but the handwriting in the body is disputed, in light of Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal writ petition, set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 18-06-2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, and restored the order dated 27-05-2024 passed by the JMFC, Latur rejecting the application for sending the cheque to the Handwriting Expert.
Law Points
- Section 20 of Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- Handwriting Expert
- Cheque Dishonour
- Revision against rejection of application for expert opinion
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (12) 2
Criminal Writ Petition No.1347 of 2025
Mr. Namdev D. Kendre for petitioner, Mr. Kalyan V. Patil for respondent
Millind Chandrakant Kulkarni
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging the revisional court's order allowing the accused's application to send the cheque to a Handwriting Expert.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner/complainant sought setting aside of the impugned judgment and order dated 18-06-2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Latur.
Filing Reason
The revisional court allowed the accused's revision and quashed the JMFC's order rejecting the application for sending the cheque to a Handwriting Expert.
Previous Decisions
The JMFC, Latur by order dated 27-05-2024 rejected the accused's application (Exh.97) for sending the cheque to a Handwriting Expert. The Additional Sessions Judge, Latur by judgment dated 18-06-2025 allowed Criminal Revision Application No.65 of 2024 and set aside the JMFC's order.
Issues
Whether the accused is entitled to send the cheque to a Handwriting Expert when the signature is admitted but the handwriting in the body is disputed, in light of Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the respondent does not dispute the issuance of the cheque or his signature, only the handwriting in the body. Under Section 20 of the NI Act, the payee has authority to fill up the instrument, so sending to a Handwriting Expert is unnecessary. Relied on Avinash v. Miyasaheb Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha.
Respondent argued that the revisional court's order is correct and the handwriting in the body is disputed, requiring expert opinion.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, when a person signs and issues a cheque, the payee is authorized to fill up the instrument to complete it. Therefore, if the drawer admits his signature, the handwriting in the body of the cheque is not a material dispute requiring expert opinion. The revisional court erred in allowing the application for sending the cheque to a Handwriting Expert.
Judgment Excerpts
As per section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act when the person who issued the cheque by signing the instrument, in that case, the payee has the authority to fill up the same to complete the instrument. Therefore, for that purpose, it is not necessary to send the cheque to the Handwriting Expert.
Procedural History
The petitioner/complainant filed SCC No.468/2016 before the JMFC, Latur. The accused filed an application (Exh.97) to send the cheque to a Handwriting Expert, which was rejected on 27-05-2024. The accused filed Criminal Revision Application No.65 of 2024 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, which was allowed on 18-06-2025, setting aside the JMFC's order. The petitioner then filed the present Criminal Writ Petition No.1347 of 2025 before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 20
