Signed cheque completed by payee does not amount to material alteration; statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act stand unless credibly rebutted.

A signed cheque later completed by the complainant was not treated as a material alteration where the record showed no proof of filling contrary to instructions or without authority; implied authority was recognised, so Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act did not invalidate the cheque. Once execution was admitted, presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 arose that the cheque was issued for consideration and in discharge of debt or liability. The accused's inconsistent repayment defence and absence of reliable proof failed to rebut those presumptions on a preponderance of probabilities, and liability under Section 138 was treated as proved.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complainant's filling up of the cheque particulars amounted to a material alteration rendering the cheque void under Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. (ii) Whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and established repayment so as to sustain the acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Issue (i): Whether the complainant's filling up of the cheque particulars amounted to a material alteration rendering the cheque void under Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The cheque was admittedly signed by the accused and the body of the instrument was filled in by the complainant. The evidence did not show that the cheque had been filled up contrary to any instruction or without authority. Filling in particulars on a cheque handed over by the drawer does not, by itself, constitute a material alteration. The law recognises implied authority in such cases, and the decisive fact remains the drawer's signature, not who wrote the body of the cheque.

Conclusion: The cheque was not void for material alteration, and Section 87 had no application against the complainant.

Issue (ii): Whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and established repayment so as to sustain the acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: Once execution of the cheque was admitted, presumptions arose that it was issued for consideration and in discharge of a debt or liability. The accused's defence remained inconsistent on the amount borrowed and repaid, and no reliable material was produced to prove repayment. A mere plausible explanation was insufficient to rebut the presumptions, which had to be displaced on a preponderance of probabilities. The acquittal was therefore based on an unreasonable approach to the evidence.

Conclusion: The accused failed to rebut the presumptions, and liability under Section 138 stood proved.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside, the complaint succeeded, and the accused was convicted and sentenced under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Ratio Decidendi: When a signed cheque is handed over and the body is later filled in with implied authority, no material alteration is made; in prosecutions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, statutory presumptions of consideration and debt operate unless rebutted by credible evidence on a preponderance of probabilities.

---