Blank cheque alteration and rebuttable presumptions under negotiable instruments law can defeat a section 138 prosecution.

A cheque must be certain as to the amount and payee at the time of issue; unauthorised later insertion of those particulars may amount to material alteration and render the instrument void under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The presumptions under sections 118 and 139 remain rebuttable, and the defence may displace them by showing a more probable version on a preponderance of probability. Where the evidence supports misuse of a blank cheque and improbability of the alleged liability, the statutory presumption can be treated as rebutted and an acquittal under section 138 sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a cheque issued with blank particulars and later filled up without the drawer's consent is a valid negotiable instrument or stands vitiated by material alteration; (ii) Whether the presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act stood rebutted so as to sustain the acquittal under section 138.

Issue (i): Whether a cheque issued with blank particulars and later filled up without the drawer's consent is a valid negotiable instrument or stands vitiated by material alteration.

Analysis: A cheque, as a species of bill of exchange, must contain certainty as to the sum payable and the payee. Where the amount and payee are not specified at the time of issue, the instrument lacks the essential attributes of a valid cheque. The subsequent insertion of the amount and the payee's name without the drawer's consent amounts to a material alteration, attracting the consequence of invalidity under section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Conclusion: Such a cheque was liable to be treated as void on account of material alteration.

Issue (ii): Whether the presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act stood rebutted so as to sustain the acquittal under section 138.

Analysis: The presumptions under sections 118 and 139 are rebuttable. On the evidence, the defence version that the cheque had been misused after a long lapse of time and that the underlying liability was improbable was found more probable. The evidence led by the defence was accepted as reliable and sufficient to displace the statutory presumption on the standard of preponderance of probability.

Conclusion: The presumptions stood rebutted and the acquittal under section 138 was justified.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the order of acquittal was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A cheque must be certain as to the amount and payee at the time of issue, and any unauthorised insertion of those particulars may amount to material alteration; the statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act are rebuttable on a preponderance of probability.

---