Specimen obtaining

1) Whether signature are yours, if so than you have given implied authority to fill in other details.

2) The manner in which you are asking advice will be of little help since such cases have to be handleled at every step properly so if you want to get out of it you must engange an expert defense advocate.

3) Many accused in cheque bounce cases get trqapped due to such imature tactics and when time is lost nothing can be done otherwise in criminal cases benefit of doubt is always in favor of accused but it is a job of an expert advocate.

I do not agree with Pt # 1 above. S.20 of NI Act is not applicable on cheques.

Please update your knowledge from the following KERALA DN BENCH  observations-

Mr.trivedi is correct.And also a another point as special act NIA the court need not consider the benifit of dout in favour of the accused 

thanks sir daulatji

   when one gives blank cheque --he givesa lso --the open trust.the payee claiming 16 lacs by cheque ,while he says drawer received 16 lacs in cash --is it no show the imaginary loan. moreover the payee denies his writing on on cheque --while it is fact .then i think writing expert would do good.

 my question is --what is procedure in chef cross exam to get written same data on plain paper as on

cheque .so the court can visualise the tactis at a glance.perhaps ,such open similarity would not ask for expert opinion.pl guide.thanks

Mr Raja and Trivedi please give law and citation of any in support of your view.

Pl refer S.20 of NI Act, following can be culled out:

1. No mention of Cheque.

2. Mention of maximum amount which can be calculated based on stamp affixed.

3. Cheque has been taken off from the list of Stamped Instrument, cheque is not a stamped instrument, S.20 is for stamped instruments only.

4. A blank cheque leaf is no cheque, above order of Kerala High Court says that if there are different hadn writings then it cannot be said that it is invalid cheque (true), but then accused can prove that it was blank and filled up without his consent, in that case S.20 will not help the complainant.

5. Madras High Court has clearly ruled that S.20 is not applicable on cheques, but many a times it may be difficlut for accused to positively prove that it was blank at the time of delivery and filled up without his consent.

The point is trial courts give too much importance to dishonored cheque and S.139, which is not legally right.

R trivedi it is your interpretation of law so please let us  know of judgement of any court based on your views.

Request please give your interpretation of this law.

R Trivedi you are regularly criticising and finding fault with  HIGH COURT AND EVEN SUPREMRE COURT citations.

Now the above contributor has given DIVISION BENCH HIGH COURT Judgement which clearly says that merely saying by the accused that  the cheque was blank is no evidence.

If you have superior knowledge than above HIGH COURT JUDGES please tell us how any accused can give evidence that the cheque given was blank.

Laxminarayan, Please read what is stated and then jump to conclusion.

1. I have clearly stated that it is difficult for accused to prove that the cheque was blank at the time of issue, so obviously a mere statement is not sufficient even if  hand writings of various part is different.

Have evidence that the cheque was  Blank at the time of delivery, then in absence of any other evidence complainant cannot say that he had authority under S.20 of NI Act to fill up.

 If your interpretation of S.20 is different please come forward rather than making vague statements.

Please read again the KERALA HIGH COURT JUDGMENT given above by a Ld expert which gives all the answers still you want to prove HIGH COURT DN BENCH  wrong.

The HONBLE LORSHIPS have said that it is implied authority so the accused has to prove otherwise and not the complainant.

Please read the Judgement again before giving any  contrary opinion against HIGHER COURT Judgements.

Part of above order..

"The burden is therefore entirely on the drawer of the cheque to establish that the date, amount and the payee's name are written by somebody else without the knowledge and consent of the drawer. "

Read the above and tell the forum what it means ? S.20 says that drawer gives authority to holder to fill up the amount, above order does not confirm that. Moreover above order was based on civil case and took reference to Bhaskaran case, which was subsequently not appreciated by a division bench of Madras High Court. Again the above order and such similar order talks of validity of cheque with different hand writing which is true, none of these orders says that the holder (possessor) has the absolute write to fill up any amount as per S.20, even Honorabel Supreme Court ruled that  it is the prima facie authority not the absolute authority and drawer can dispute the same with cogent evidence.

I give my opinion based on sound argument, you seem to throw the words without even understanding the true meaning. If you feel that S.20 is applicable on cheques then I cannot help it. Please do not give opinion on the issues which can misguide the forum and for which you do not have the proper understanding.

Your reasoning is applicable to you only please read the whole portion particularly following part.

 The mere fact that the payee's name and the amount shown are not in the handwriting of the drawer does not invalidate the cheque. No law provides in the case of cheques the entire body has to be written by the drawer only