Dismissed

Ratan Roy v. Bijoy Saha and Anr.

Tripura HC14 Sept 2017Crl.Rev.P./64/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition, filed by the drawer of a cheque against the rejection of an application for expert examination under Section 87, was dismissed at the admission stage by the High Court without notice. The revision bench upheld the trial court's finding that mere addition of amount or payee's name by another person does not invalidate a cheque.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed at the admission stage without issuing notice to respondents.

Ratan Roy Vs Bijoy Saha and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Tripura HC (2017)

¶1

Crl. Rev. P. No.64/2017

¶2

B E F O R E

¶3

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. T. VAIPHEI

¶4

Present :

¶5

For the petitioner : Mr. P. Sahu, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.C. Debnath, Addl. P.P.

¶6

14.09.2017.

¶7

Heard Mr. P. Sahu, the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶8

After hearing him at some length and on perusing the impugned order, I am of the view that this revision could not be admitted and is to be dismissed at the admission stage without issuing notice to the respondents.

¶9

The trial court has given elaborate reasons for rejecting the application of the petitioner for sending the cheque in question for expert examination. The relevant findings of the trial court may be reproduced below:-

¶10

“In the instant case, signature is admitted. According to the drawer of the cheque, amount and the name has been written not by the drawer but by somebody else or by the payee and tried to get it encashed. I am of the view, by putting the amount and the name there is no material alteration on the cheque under Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In fact there is no alteration but only adding the amount and the date. There is no rule in banking business that payee’s name as well as the amount should be written by drawer himself. 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. What is material is the signature of the drawer and not the body of the instrument. Therefore, when the drawer has issued the cheque whether the entire body was written by the drawer written beyond the instructions

¶11

Crl. Rev. P. No.64/2017 Page 1 of 2

¶12

of the drawer, whether the amount is due or not, those and such matters are defenses which drawer has to raise and prove it. Therefore, the mere fact that the payee’s name and the amount shown in the cheque are in different handwriting is not a reason for not honouring the cheque by the Bank. Banks would normally see whether the instrument is that of the drawer and the cheque has been signed by the drawer himself. 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.”

¶13

In my opinion, the trial court did not commit any improper exercise of jurisdiction in rejecting the application.

¶14

Consequently, this revision petition has no merit and is dismissed.

¶15

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶16

Crl. Rev. P. No.64/2017

¶17

Page 2 of 2

Ratan Roy v. Bijoy Saha and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratan Roy v. Bijoy Saha and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendrajit Debbarma Vs Sandeep Debbarma and Ors.

The State of Tripura Vs Bimal Chakraborty

Mithun Deb Vs the State of Tripura

Sushanta Majumder Vs T.T.A.A.D.C and 6 Ors.

Jyotsna Das Vs Sushil Majumder And Another

Samarendra Das Vs the State of Tripura