Post-dated cheque marking as bank acceptance, with stamping objections barred after admission in evidence.

Marking a post-dated cheque by the drawee bank was treated as an acceptance of the bill of exchange, because the bank's endorsement was construed as an undertaking to pay on the due date and as assent signed and delivered within the meaning of negotiable instruments law. The commentary also notes that banking practice supported this view, since cheque marking was understood to confer added value and operate as certification in context. On stamp duty, once the instrument had already been admitted in evidence, the bar against later objection prevented a challenge based on insufficient stamping. The bank was therefore described as liable as acceptor, and the non-stamping objection failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the marking of a post-dated cheque by the drawee bank amounted to an acceptance of the bill of exchange and made the bank liable to the holder; and whether objection to the unstamped instrument could defeat admissibility after admission in evidence.

Analysis: A cheque may be a bill of exchange, and a post-dated cheque, when drawn and marked, is not outside the Negotiable Instruments Act merely because payment is deferred to a future date. The marking words, taken in their ordinary sense and construed against the bank that used them, were held to mean an undertaking by the bank to pay the amount on the due date. On that basis, the drawee bank signed its assent upon the bill and delivered it within the meaning of section 7, thereby becoming acceptor. The Court also noted that the local banking practice of marking cheques supported the conclusion that such certification gave the cheque added value and operated as acceptance in the circumstances. As to stamp duty, the instrument had already been admitted in evidence, and the statutory bar prevented that admission from being challenged later on the ground of insufficient stamping.

Conclusion: The marking constituted an acceptance by the bank, which was liable as acceptor for the cheque amount, and the objection based on non-stamping failed.

---