1 2025:CGHC:4542 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 297 of 2025 1 - Vikram Mandavi S/o Jhimtu Mandavi Aged About 37 Years R/o Anantapur, Ps Anantapur, Distt. Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Rambachan Yadav, S/o Gadur Ram Yadav, Aged About 75 Years, Currently R/o Harinagar, Ward No. 59, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh Permanent Address Khaspara, Anantpur, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 24/01/2025 1. Heard finally. 2. Petitioner has preferred this CRMP under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suaksha Sanhita, 2023 setting aside the impugned order dated 06/11/2024, passed by the learned Sessions Court, District Durg in Cr.R. No. 179/2024, whereby the revision application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner borrowed 3,15,000/- and issued a cheque for repayment, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The petitioner, however, contends that only 2 Rs.1,00,000/- was borrowed, fully repaid, and the respondent misused the security cheque by filling an inflated amount. The petitioner's application under Section 45 sought forensic verification of handwriting and signatures on the cheque to support this defense, but the JMFC dismissed it, citing Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which permits completion of blank cheques by the holder. The Sessions Court upheld this dismissal in revision, disregarding the petitioner's plea that the respondent exceeded their entitlement under Section 20 and fraudulently filled in an exaggerated amount. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has given five cheques to the respondent as security, the loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was fully repaid and four cheques were duly returned by the respondent however fifth cheque was misused. He also submits that the cheque amount was fraudulently filled in without their consent. Learned trial Court dismissed the revision application without addressing the material fact and legal grounds and without examine the necessity of forensic evidence in light of petitioner’s defense. He further submits that the denial of an expert examination effectively curtails the petitioner’s ability to present evidence to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which reads as under :- 3 “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. It is admitted fact that before the trial Court the petitioner has admitted that the cheque was signed by him. As per Section 20 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 when incomplete cheque was issued by the accused it means accused gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete the cheque and in such a situation if any further entry was made by the complainant then the same cannot be examined through opinion by the handwriting expert. 8. From perusal of order passed by the learned trial Court and revisional Court, I have found that the learned trial Courts have not committed any error to dismiss the application under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act as well as revision application filed by the petitioner/accused. Accordingly, this CRMP is rejected. Sd/-Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Kamde NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Digitally signed by NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Date: 2025.02.28 17:51:18 +0530