https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309141 A cheque complaint by a company must be filed through proved authorisation, and where no authority letter or board resolution is produced, the complaint is incompetent. The statutory presumption under Section 139 continued in favour of the complainant because the accused offered no independent evidence to show the cheques were only security and not issued toward liability. However, visible cutting and overwriting in the cheque dates amounted to an unexplained material alteration; in the absence of proof of the drawer's consent or a common intention, Section 87 barred enforcement. The acquittal was therefore sustained on the grounds of want of proved authorisation and material alteration. en-us Mon, 04 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 Aug 2023 12:21:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309141 A cheque complaint by a company must be filed through proved authorisation, and where no authority letter or board resolution is produced, the complaint is incompetent. The statutory presumption under Section 139 continued in favour of the complainant because the accused offered no independent evidence to show the cheques were only security and not issued toward liability. However, visible cutting and overwriting in the cheque dates amounted to an unexplained material alteration; in the absence of proof of the drawer's consent or a common intention, Section 87 barred enforcement. The acquittal was therefore sustained on the grounds of want of proved authorisation and material alteration. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 04 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309141