Delhi High Court
Manoj Sharma vs Anil Aggarwal on 20 April, 2012
Author: M. L. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 20.04.2012
+ CRL.M.C. 1325/2012
MANOJ SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sandeep Kumar, Advocate.
versus
ANIL AGGARWAL ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo.
With
+ CRL.M.C. 1326/2012
MANOJ SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sandeep Kumar, Advocate.
versus
ANIL AGGARWAL ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo.
With
+ CRL.M.C. 1327/2012
MANOJ SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sandeep Kumar, Advocate.
versus
ANIL AGGARWAL ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo.
With
+ CRL.M.C. 1328/2012
MANOJ SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Crl.M.Cs. 1325-1333/2012 Page 1 of 6
Through: Mr.Sandeep Kumar, Advocate.
versus
ANIL AGGARWAL ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo.
With
+ CRL.M.C. 1329/2012
MANOJ SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sandeep Kumar, Advocate.
versus
ANIL AGGARWAL ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo.
With
+ CRL.M.C. 1330/2012
MANOJ SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sandeep Kumar, Advocate.
versus
ANIL AGGARWAL ..... Respondent
Through: N emo.
With
+ CRL.M.C. 1331/2012
MANOJ SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sandeep Kumar, Advocate.
versus
Crl.M.Cs. 1325-1333/2012 Page 2 of 6
ANIL AGGARWAL ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo.
With
+ CRL.M.C. 1332/2012
MANOJ SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sandeep Kumar, Advocate.
versus
ANIL AGGARWAL ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo.
And
+ CRL.M.C. 1333/2012
MANOJ SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sandeep Kumar, Advocate.
versus
ANIL AGGARWAL ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)
1. In all these petitions, the petitioner assails the order of learned ASJ
dated 02.04.2012, whereby the criminal revision petitions against the orders
of M.M. dated 11.7.2011 were dismissed. The respondent/complainant had
filed as many as nine complaints against the petitioner under Section 138,
N.I.Act. before the court of M.M. In all those cases, the petitioner, who was
the accused filed applications for leading evidence of Handwriting Expert.
The said applications were dismissed by the M.M. vide his orders dated
11.7.2011. The said orders of M.M. were challenged by way of criminal
revisions before the ASJ, which came to be dismissed vide the impugned
order dated 2.4.2012.
2. The main plea that has been taken to assail those orders is that the
complainant had filled up the contents of the cheques and the pro-notes
given to the respondent/complainant, who was his partner and that those
were misused by filling up the blanks therein, and thus, he was entitled to
prove the same by way of the opinion of Handwriting Expert.
3. I have gone through the orders of M.M. dated 11.7.2011 and also the
impugned order.
4. It is seen that similar pleas were taken before the M.M. as also before
the ASJ.
5. Though, it was held in the case of T.Nagappa Vs. Y.R. Muralidhar,
(2008) 5 SCC 633 on which reliance was placed before the court of ASJ,
that the accused should be given fair trial to lead evidence in his defence,
but, at the same time, it was also held that the court being the master of the
proceedings must determine as to whether the application of the accused in
terms of Section 243 (2) CrPC is bona fide or not or whether thereby
accused intends to bring on record a relevant material. Taking as it is that
the blanks in the cheques and the pro-notes were filled up by the
respondent/complainant, still petitioner was not entitled to prove the same by
way of opinion of Handwriting Expert. In the case of Ravi Chopra Vs.
State and Another, 2008(2) JCC (NI) 169, Delhi, it was held by this Court
after discussing Section 87 and Section 20 of the N.I.Act:
"A collective reading of the above provisions shows that even
under the scheme of the NI Act it is possible for the drawer of a
cheque to give a blank cheque signed by him to the payee and
consent either impliedly or expressly to the said cheque being
filled up at a subsequent point in time and presented for
payment by the drawee. There is no provision in the NI Act
which either defines the difference in the handwriting or the ink
pertaining to the material particulars filled up in comparison
with the signature thereon as constituting a 'material
alteration' for the purposes of Section 87 NI Act. What however
is essential is that the cheque must have been signed by the
drawer. If the signature is altered or does not tally with the
normal signature of the maker, that would be a material
alteration. Therefore as long as the cheque has been signed by
the drawer, the fact that the ink in which the name and figures
are written or the date is filled up is different from the ink of
the signature is not a material alteration for the purposes of
Section 87 NI Act".
6. Further, in the case of P.S.A. Thamotharan Vs. Dalmia Cements
(P) Ltd., 2005 (1) JCC (NI) 96 Madras, it was held that to have a validity of
Negotiable Instrument such as cheque, it is not mandatory and no law
prescribes that the body of the cheque should also be written by the
signatory to the cheque. A cheque could be filled up by anybody, if it is
signed by the account holder of the cheque, accepting the amount mentioned
therein.
7. In view of this dictum and law as laid down in the afore-cited two
judgments, and keeping in view the true spirit of Section 20 and 87 of the
N.I.Act, the proof of filling up of these negotiable instruments by the
respondent or any person, would not be of any relevance. The petitioner has
not disputed his signatures on the said cheques and even in cross-
examination, has admitted this fact that the cheques were issued by him and
handed over to the complainant along with the covering letter. The
presumption of issue of cheques for discharge of the liability would arise
against the petitioner. Thus, I do not see any impropriety or illegality in the
orders of the M.M. as also that of the ASJ. The petitions being without any
merit are hereby dismissed in limini.
M.L.MEHTA, J
APRIL 20, 2012
akb
