be a material alteration. Therefore as long as the cheque has been signed by the drawer, the fact that the ink in which the name and figures are written or the date is filled up is different from the ink of the signature is not a material alteration for the purposes of Section 87 NI Act.” A learned Single Judge, vide order dated 22nd February, 2008 passed in Crl. M.C. No. 7821/2006 titled Jaipal Singh Rana vs. Swaraj Pal Singh has held that in a case involving the offence under Section 138 NI Act, the Magistrate would be justified in declining to refer the cheques for opinion of the handwriting expert where the signatures of the drawer on the cheque were not disputed by the drawer. Vide order dated 31.5.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.128/2017 titled Ramesh Goyal vs. State, the learned Single Judge has held that there is no law that a person drawing the cheque must necessarily fill it up in his own handwriting. Once the signatures on the cheque are admitted, the liability arising therefrom cannot be evaded on the specific plea that contents were not filled up by the drawer. When a blank cheque is signed and handed over, it only implies that person signing it, and handing it over, has given implied authority to the holder of the cheque to fill up the blank portions, it being a matter of legitimate presumption that he would understand the consequences of doing so. Reliance is also place on
