If cheque bears signature of accused then it will be presumed that cheque was issued towards legally enforceable debt or liability and accused will be held guilty of commiting of.fence of sec 138 of N.I.Act.

Yes it is assumed that once the accused signed the cheque the authority is given to the holder to fill in details.

However in NI 138 cases since the cheque is valid for a time limit and hence if it is proved that date is not written by the accused than it is not valid cheque.

FOR DOUBTING THOMSES WHO ARE DIME A DOZEN , THERE ARE SPECIFIC CASE LAWS OF MUMBAI AND MADRAS HIGH COURTS.

A blank cheque, duly signed by the drawer and issued is an Incohate Instrument. Section 20 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 deals with incohate instruments

20. Inchoate stamped instruments. Where one person signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accordance with the law relating to negotiable instruments then in force in 2[ India], and either wholly blank or having written thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument, he thereby gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete, as the case may be, upon it a negotiable instrument, for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp. The person so signing shall be liable upon such instrument, in the capacity in which he signed the same, to any holder in due course for such amount: provided that no person other than a holder in due course shall recover from the person delivering the instrument any thing in excess of the amount intended by him to be paid thereunder.

under section 20 of NI act when balnk cheque is given by drawer he gives authroty to payee or holder in due course to complete the instrument
 

Ramdas Anant Naik vs Jacob Fernandes And Anr. on 4 August, 2005  BOMAY HIGH COURT

9. The Trial Court on the basis of the evidence on record has given a finding that a blank cheque was issued to the complainant after the evidence on record and has held that if a blank cheque is issued by any person and amount payable is not mentioned it does not constitute a cheque and, therefore, the penal provisions of Section 138 of the said Act are not attracted. The Trial Court has relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in support of the said finding.

Thanks SastryJi

Pl quote some SC Judgements

Laxminarayanji

The Judgement quoted by you is in copntradiction of what U said in teh thread

The cheque cases are highly techinical and things change with pleadings.

In the balnk cheque cases if the accused is not able to prove that cheque was blank than this or any other citation will not help.

So when many people suggest that claim in the court that cheque was blank and there I have questioned that how you wIll prove that it was blank.

YES THE CHEQUE WAS BLANK CAN BE PROVED BUT IT IS HIGHLY SPECIALISED JOB OF DEFENSE.

. MERELY CLAIMING THAT THE CHEQUE WAS BLANK WILL NOT HELP AT ALL THAT WAS MY VIEW.

STILL ANY CHEQUE BOUNCE CASE CAN BE WON IF THE DEFENSE IS DELLIGANT.

The points raised by Advocate Shstry has been answered in detail by following judgment of Madras High court.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Crl. R.C. No. 1439 of 2004

17. As per the Negotiable Instruments Act, limitation has been prescribed and as such, though a signed cheque would lead to the presumption of authorising the drawee to fill it up, and present it for payment, the limitation of six months prescribed under the Act, cannot be altered by way of an undated cheque being filled up after one year and six months. In this case, it has been proved that the undated cheque was handed over on 09.09.1998 to one year and six months prior to the date available in the cheque, and therefore, it cannot be legally presumed that the revision petitioner had authorised the respondent to fill it up and present it at any time even after the statutory period of limitation, according to his convenience. This Court is of the considered view that filling up an undated cheque against the limitation prescribed under the Negotiable Instruments Act would be against the legislative mandate of the said Act and would create an anomalous situation likely to be misused by unscrupulous litigants. Therefore, I am of the view that the undated cheque issued and handed over on 09.09.1998 would not create the presumption that the revision petitioner had authorised the respondent to fill up the date as 28.03.2000, one and half years after the same was handed over to be presented for payment, and therefore, the alleged cause of action based on Ex.P.3 is not sustainable to maintain the criminal complaint against the revision petitioner.

So merely saying that the complaint cheque was blank will not help but accused has to prove by clever handling of the defense that cheque handed over was blank., than only these citations will help.

Now the advocates who actually conduct the cases in court and not just dishing out advice should figure out and plan how to bring on record with reliable evidence this fact.

Mere statement of accused will not help since accused is an interested party AND unlsess supported by corroboting evidence it will be overlooked.

ONLY ADVOCATES WHO ACTUALLY GO THROUGH THE COMPLETE PROCESS OF NI 138 TRIAL CAN UTILISE THESE FINER DETAILS.

There is no bar on anyone filling the cheque, but if it can be proved that cheque when issued was blank, then the complainant has to prove that he had authority to fill up the blanks...............Your observation that complainant side filled up the cheque... can be a good circumstantial evidence to support your other evidence in proof of cheque being blank when delivered.

a blank cheque without the amount is not a cheque as per S.5/6 of Ni act. S.20 is not applicable on cheques simply because cheque is not a stamped instrument. So S.20 will not help complainant if it can be proved that cheque leaf was blank when delivered, and there was no subsequent consent by signatory.

A simple reading of Mr Laxminarain messages would show that he does not understand the orders of High Court / Supreme Court, it also shows that he does not understand the matter written by others.  Even Mr Ashok Kumar who initiated the post, pointed out the contradiction by Mr. Laxminarain, still Mr Laxminarain continued to babble instead of acknowledging the mistakes. His total lack of knowledge of law was amply demostrated when in one of the posts he discovered that honorable Supreme Court has not set aside the CrPC S. 315 ?? This was his finding about more than 140 years of CrPC.

He further writes as below

Pl give details of any case any whare handled by you on the lines insted of using  MOST FILTHY LANGUAGE.

R Trivedi --- very unfortunate to see you unnecessarily making such personal remarks. You have also written "demostrated" instead of "demonstrated". Pls abstain from getting personal - I am sure you will agree this serves no purpose.

Prasun, I feel sad that I got dragged into this but actually in one of the other post this gentleman provoked me.

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/For-all-cheque-bounce-accused-74035.asp#.UUB89dbinko

I respect the differing opinion, but unnecessarily making comments, leads nowhere. In one another post he made some sarcastic remark also. Mostly in all my contribution I stick to topic in question with valid arguments. If some one finds any problem with my observation, he is most welcome to point it out with sound argument, not by some absurd statement.

Who ever this person is but by unrealistic answers giving cruel joke on the agony of accused in cheque cases.

I again ask where you have contested any cheque bounce case on the likes being suggested in this public forum.