Signed cheque later completed by holder is not a material alteration and does not, by itself, defeat Section 138 prosecution.

Where the drawer admits the signature on a cheque, later filling in of the date, name or amount by the holder is not a material alteration per se under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The statutory scheme, including the provisions on incomplete instruments and material alteration, permits completion of a signed cheque in the manner contemplated by law. In a Section 138 prosecution, the real question remains whether the cheque was signed and issued in discharge of a liability, with statutory presumptions applying under Sections 118 and 139. On that basis, refusal to send the cheque for handwriting expert opinion was justified because a difference in ink or handwriting alone does not invalidate the cheque.

---

---

Issues: Whether a criminal court should direct examination of a signed cheque by the handwriting expert when the drawer admits his signature but claims that the payee later filled in the material particulars, and whether such later filling up of particulars constitutes a material alteration so as to invalidate prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 requires the cheque to be signed by the drawer, but it does not make the validity of the instrument depend on the drawer having himself written every material particular. Sections 20, 49, 86 and 125 show that an incomplete instrument or blank cheque may be completed by the holder in due course in the manner contemplated by law, and Section 87 treats only a material alteration as void. The Court held that a difference in ink or handwriting between the signature and the filled-in particulars is not, by itself, a material alteration. Where the signature is admitted, the defence that the cheque was completed later does not by itself justify a forensic reference, because the real question in a Section 138 prosecution remains whether the cheque was signed and issued in discharge of a liability, and that liability is governed by the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139. The Court distinguished the authorities relied upon by the petitioner because they either involved denial of signature or did not arise in the context of Section 138 prosecution.

Conclusion: The refusal to send the cheques for handwriting expert opinion was justified, and the petitioner was not entitled to the requested forensic reference.

Final Conclusion: A signed cheque does not become unenforceable merely because the payee later fills in its particulars, and a handwriting expert's opinion on that aspect does not, by itself, rebut the statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the drawer admits the signature on the cheque, later filling in of the date, name or amount by the holder is not a material alteration per se, and refusal to send such a cheque for handwriting expert opinion does not ordinarily amount to denial of a fair defence in a Section 138 prosecution.

---