Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19055 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2848 of 2025 Applicant :- Raj Kumar Vaish And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pritish Kumar,Amal Rastogi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Pritish Kumar, learned counsel for applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. By means of present application U/S 482 of Cr.P.C. read with 528 of B.N.S.S. 2023 the applicants have assailed the order dated 25.11.2024 passed by Additional Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 9, Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 2338/2020 thereby rejecting the application preferred by the applicants for referring the cheque for forensic analysis. 3. The brief facts of the case are that applicants herein have business of selling fruit juices while the complaint was supplying fruits to the shop of the applicants and during business relationship the complainant was given two cheques hearing No. 252118 and 252119 o be drawn on Axis Bank, Lucknow. It is admitted that the cheques were duly signed by applicant No. 1 and the amount was filled in the cheque but the amount in words was not written. When the complainant has presented the cheques to the bank the same has been dishonored. 4. The applicant/accused have put in appearance before the trial court. During trial, it is stated that they came to know that the amount stated in the figures in the said cheques has been tampered with and on this account submits that the liability of the applicant in the present case would be limited only to the amount filled by them and not to the amount which has been interpolated by the complainant and for this purposes they had moved an application for references to an expert. The trial court had duly considered the application and noticed the fact that there is no dispute that the said signed cheques were given to the complainant and the applicant does not dispute his signature. 5. The Court further considered that rest of the columns of the cheque were not filled up and according to Section 20 of the N.I. Act in case a blank signed cheque is given to another it would deem to authorize such person to fill up the blank columns and merely on account of the fact that columns were not filled up would not invalidate the said cheque and accordingly on this account has rejected the application of the petitioner for referring the matter to an expert. 6. Learned counsel for applicants assailing the said order has submitted that the liability of the petitioner would be limited to the amount filled up in the said cheque. A photograph of which is with the petitioner while he submits that there has been interpolation in the figures and accordingly the liability of the petitioner would be limited to the amount originally filled up. In this regard, it is relevant to consider the provisions of Section 20 of N.I. Act. For the sake of convenience, Section of N.I. Act is quoted as under:- "20. Inchoate stamped instruments.— Where one person signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accordance with the law relating to negotiable instruments then in force in India, and either wholly blank or having written thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument, he thereby gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete, as the case may be, upon it a negotiable instrument, for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp. The person so signing shall be liable upon such instrument, in the capacity in which he signed the same, to any holder in due course for such amount; provided that no person other than a holder in due course shall recover from the person delivering the instrument anything in excess of the amount intended by him to be paid thereunder." 7. From the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that the applicant had given a cheque duly signed by him but was not filled up in all the material particulars inasmuch as amount in word is not filled up by him. In case such a cheque is given then as per Section 20 of the N.I. At 1881 prima facie the drawer of the cheque has given authority to the holder thereof to complete the said cheque with the limitation being that the amount so filled up should not be more than the amount covered by the stamp and in the present case to the cheque and consequently the amount of stamp thereon would be irrelevant. The liability of the drawer of the cheque has also been dealt with under Section 20 of the N.I. Act providing that the person so signing shall be liable upon such instrument in the capacity in which he signed the same to any holder in due course. 8. The proviso only limits the liability to pay the amount which was intended to be paid. Accordingly, even if the submissions of the petitioner are to be believed then he will still have to prove during the trial that the cheques were filled up only for part of the said amount and there has been interpolation in the said cheque. Apart from that, evidence has to be produced by him to indicate that his liability would be limited to the amount filled up by him initially. Even if it is believed that a different ink has been used to filled up that itself would be of no consequences once there is an admission that the cheuqe is being duly signed by the applicant and the holder of the cheque has full discretion to complete remaining part of the cheque in view of statutory provisions of section 20 of N.I. Act. 9. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar, 2019 (4) SCC 197, has held as under:- "33. A meaningful reading of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act including, in particular, Sections 20, 87 and 139, makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of Section 138 would be attracted. 34. If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence." 9. In light of the discussions hereinabove, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order, accordingly this application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. 10. However, in light of the proviso to Section 20 of N.I. Act the applicant shall have full liberty to place material before the trial court to demonstrate that his liability is only limited the amount filled up in the cheque. 11. Subject to the aforesaid observations, this application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 5.4.2025/Ravi/ Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench