Ashim Kumar Roy, J. - (1.) BOTH these criminal revisions are taken up for hearing as two different criminal proceedings, against the petitioner, relating to the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, are sought to be quashed on identical issues.
(2.) PRECISELY , it is the case of the petitioner that one Uttam Mondal obtained a few cheques, including the two cheques in question from her, which were although signed by her but the amount was blank and subsequently, by filling up the amount, without her knowledge same were presented for encashment and there was no legally enforceable debt or liability. A criminal case has also been started against said Uttam Mondal for theft of those cheque leaves. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted in the above background the petitioner moved two separate applications before the trial court and prayed both the cheques in question be sent to the handwriting expert for comparing the contents and writings in the said cheques with her admitted signature. However, the learned Magistrate rejected such prayer.
(3.) THIS is a case where the petitioner is the signatory of the cheques was never disputed. It is only denied that the portion of the cheques specified for the cheque amount was filled up by someone other than her. When a cheque is signed by the person authorized to operate the bank account on which such cheque is drawn, cheque becomes a valid one according to the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act. In the case of Kalyani Baskar vs. M.S. Sampoornam (Mrs.) reported in : (2007) 2 SCC 258, the Apex Court held when the signature in cheque is disputed by the drawer of the cheque, in the interest of justice, a court must send such cheque to the handwriting expert seeking an opinion, by comparing the same with the admitted signature of the accused. In the said case the accused appeared before the Magistrate and filed an application under section 245 Cr.P.C. raising, inter alia, preliminary objection that (a) the accused has not signed the cheque nor issued it to the complainant respondent; (b) the cheque in question, was drawn from the individual account of the accused and therefore, as alleged by the complainant, the accused and her husband could not have jointly signed and issued the cheque; (c) the signature on the cheque may be sent for expert opinion to ascertain bona fides of the same; and (d) neither the appellant nor her husband owe any debt to the respondent.;