Cheque bounce case -- Material alteration -- Filling in the blank shall not be always required to be treated as a material alteration -- Alteration in the common parlance is understood to mean, something already been written has been changed/altered subsequently -- Alteration is not synonymous to the word “filling up the unfilled column or space” -- Alteration is permissible, if it is made in order to carry out the common intention of the original parties.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.08.2019

Presumption of Legally enforceable liability – Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption u/s 139 of the Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt.

(SC) Decided on: 06.02.2019

Rebuttal of presumption – Payee may fill up the amount and other particulars, this in itself would not invalidate the cheque -- Onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence -- Subsequent filling in of an unfilled signed cheque is not an alteration.

(SC) Decided on: 06.02.2019

No document for advance -- No document on record to show that the accused had either signed on any document after taking the advanced amount -- Accused was employee of the complainant and he left the job in March 2012, but cheque is of March 2013 i.e. after one year -- Defence taken by the accused that he was the employee and the blank cheques had been taken at the time of joining the complainant-firm is probable one -- Presumption u/s 139 of the NI Act has been duly rebutted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.03.2017

Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Complainant himself admitted that he had filled in the body of the cheque in his own handwriting and accused was not present at that time – A blank cheque cannot be enforced even if it is issued for a legal liability – Filling of contents of cheque by the complainant amounts to alteration of cheque which is not permissible in law.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.10.2015

Plea of misuse of cheque -- Case of accused is that he had only borrowed a sum of Rs.6000/- from complainant when he issued a blank cheque but subsequently, the same has been converted to an amount of Rs.6 lac -- Amount of Rs.6000/- has also been allegedly repaid by accused to complainant but to the utter surprise, no receipt in this regard was obtained -- Even, no effort has also been made by accused to get the cheque returned from complainant -- Such a lapse and omission on the part of accused is suggestive of the fact that defence plea, which has been put by him is a concocted one.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.05.2015

Commission agent-Farmers relationship -- No disclosure about the date of demand of loan and giving of loan in the complaint -- Accused has taken the defence from the very beginning that blank cheque was given to the complainant as security which was later on misused by the complainant -- Cheque has been filled in with different inks and different hand writings, rather admission clearly indicates that it was taken well in advance – Complainant was in a dominating position and had been advancing loans after getting their signatures on blank papers/cheques -- In fact, this is the mode adopted by the commission agents to always keep farmers in their clutches -- Since the complainant has admitted his relationship with the petitioner as commission agent and farmer, the complainant has withheld the best evidence with regard to sale of agricultural produce of the year by the accused – Accused is liable to be acquitted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.03.2015

Rebuttal of Presumption of legal enforceable liability – Accused had clearly come up with the defence that the complainant had got his signatures on the blank cheques and other papers but no loan amount was disbursed to him -- Therefore, it was mandatory for the complainant to produce the record to show the liability and the fact that loan was given of this amount, on this date and how many installments the accused had paid and what amount remains due payable regarding which the cheque was issued -- In the absence of this evidence, the accused has rebutted the presumption that cheque is not issued for legally enforceable debt.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.01.2015

Authenticity of Bills -- In view of discrepancy in statements of witnesses regarding authenticity of Bill for which the alleged cheque in question was issued by the accused to the complainant for discharge of its debt; being under a cloud – Statement that cheques might have been issued against previous transaction, apparently lends credence to the defence of the accused that the blank cheque was collected by the complainant company as security at the time of starting the business -- Trial Court rightly acquitted the accused.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.08.2014

Security cheques – Dishonour of – Blank cheque was handed over to the complainant as a security cheque and was not meant for enforcement of a debt -- Object of Section 138 of the Act is to avoid malignant trade practice of indiscriminately issuing cheques without sufficient funds -- Cannot be construed and brought within the gamut attracting the provisions of Section 138 of the Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.08.2014