Signed blank cheque and statutory presumptions defeated the material alteration defence, restoring conviction under negotiable instruments law.

Execution of the cheque being admitted, the statutory presumption of a legally enforceable debt arose, and the accused had to rebut it on a preponderance of probabilities. A defence of material alteration failed where the cheque was delivered as a signed blank cheque, because completion of its contents was authorised and did not render it void. The trial court had erred in treating the cheque as materially altered without properly applying the presumptions and the interaction between completion of an instrument and alteration. Interference with the acquittal was therefore warranted, and the conviction under the Negotiable Instruments Act was restored with sentence and compensation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the acquittal for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was justified. (ii) Whether the appellant had made out grounds to interfere with the acquittal.

Issue (i): Whether the acquittal for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was justified.

Analysis: The execution of the cheque having been admitted, the presumption under Section 139 arose that it was issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. That presumption was rebuttable, but the accused was required to establish a probable defence on the standard of preponderance of probabilities. The defence of material alteration could not succeed where the cheque had been issued as a signed blank cheque, because Section 20 authorises the holder to complete the instrument, and Section 87 yields to that provision. The endorsement from the bank and the material on record did not justify a finding that the cheque was void for material alteration.

Conclusion: The acquittal on the ground of material alteration was not justified and was liable to be set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant had made out grounds to interfere with the acquittal.

Analysis: In an appeal against acquittal, interference is warranted where the trial court's view is perverse or based on an error in appreciation of the evidence and governing legal presumptions. The trial court treated the cheque as materially altered despite the legal effect of a signed blank cheque and without properly applying the presumptions under Section 139 and the interaction between Sections 20 and 87. The appellate interference was therefore justified.

Conclusion: Grounds to interfere with the acquittal were made out.

Final Conclusion: The conviction of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was restored by reversing the acquittal, and sentence with compensation was imposed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a signed blank cheque is delivered to the holder, completion of its contents within the authority so given does not constitute material alteration; the statutory presumption under Section 139 operates unless rebutted on a preponderance of probabilities.

---