Suvra Ghosh, J. - (1.) The revisional application is directed against order dated 17-12-2018 passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th court, Calcutta in complaint Case No. 8945 of 2010 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
(2.) There was a business transaction between the parties and in course of such transaction, the petitioner allegedly issued an account payee cheque in favour of the opposite party in discharge of legally enforceable debt/liability on receipt of goods from the latter. The said cheque was dishonoured on being presented before the bank for which the opposite party lodged a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act of 1881. The petitioner claimed to have handed over a signed blank security cheque to the opposite party in 2007 and alleged that such cheque was fraudulently converted by the opposite party into the impugned cheque. The petitioner filed an application before the learned trial court praying for appointment of handwriting expert to assess whether the amount written in words and figures in the cheque and also the date endorsed therein were filled up contemporaneously with the signature and writing of the petitioner therein. The said application was considered and rejected by the trial court and the present revision has been preferred challenging the said order.
(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that he handed over a signed blank cheque with the name of the opposite party company written therein as security in the year 2007 which was subsequently converted as the impugned cheque by the opposite party in 2010. The security cheque was drawn on UTI bank which merged with Axis bank in 2008 and there was no occasion to draw a cheque on UTI bank in 2010 as claimed by the opposite party. The opposite party admitted receiving a security cheque from the petitioner and having it in its custody but failed to produce the same before the court. The petitioner alleged that though the blank security was issued in 2007, the amount of Rs. 7,48,474/- written in words and figures was incorporated therein along with the date 15-01- 2010 subsequently. Such discord between the handwriting of the petitioner in the cheque and the disputed insertion could, according to the petitioner, be assessed by an expert. The petitioner also submits that the number of the security cheque and the impugned cheque is identical and it is the security cheque which has been converted into the impugned cheque. The petitioner, therefore, prays for a direction upon the trial court to send the impugned cheque to the handwriting expert to ascertain whether the amount and date written therein was at the same time as the signature of the petitioner and the name of the complainant company.;