Crl.R.C.No.234 of 2022 issuance of cheque/Ex.P1 and signature. The only defence taken by him is that for an earlier transaction of Rs.45,000/-, the petitioner issued a blank cheque which has been filled up. As rightly held by the Lower Appellate Court, Section 20 of the NI Act gives the authority to the person to fill up the cheque and present the same. In this case, the respondent had done so. Further, the respondent to prove his financial capabilities marked income tax returns/Ex.P5 to Ex.P8 and the same not seriously challenged. He further submitted that the petitioner projected as though he was doing share brokering business and the respondent invested in the share market, for which, the petitioner examined himself as DW1 and marked eight documents, but not produced any document to show that he is a authorized share broker. Ex.D1 to Ex.D5 are the copies of the cheques which are for meagre amount of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/-. In this case, Ex.P1 is for Rs.14,35,000/-. Though the respondent takes a stand that one Moorthy, a relative of respondent’s employer is known to him for the past 10 years through whom the petitioner known to him, the said Moorthy was not examined in this case. Further, the respondent not informing this transaction with the petitioner to his wife and relatives are blown out of proportion. Likewise, not collecting the promissory note or other supporting documents other than the cheque for the loan is also viewed against the respondent, which is not proper. It is the petitioner who had Page No.9 of 16
