You have raised few questions and I have differing opinion with respect to above ld members:
1. In general in your case there is as such no burden on complainant as you have stated.
2. If the complainant states that he received the cheque in 2010 fully filled then, you can prove:
a. That the cheque was issued in 2008 and it was blank when given, now the problem is how do you prove this,
1. Your cheque counterfoil, showing entry against this cheque as left blank, while others are filled up.
2. Other Cheques of same series cleared way back in 2008.
3. Some communication during 2008 with complainant.
4. High improbability of your issuing cheque in 2010, lack of reason, in your case the account was closed in 2008, so why would you give a cheque in 2010 knowing fully well that it will bounce, this has potential to discard prosecution story, if poorly and falsely written.
5. Get a hold of deposit slip from the bank, or if you know complainant side well, since the cheque is filled up by complainant side, find out who did it, this way you can prove that it was blank when given.
6. Forensic Ageing test..... But unfortunately courts have started rejecting this..
The point is no defense of accused is overruled if presented with legal and admissible arguments and proofs. But many of these points must get extracted during cross examination. Many a times counsels rightly advise accused not to be witness under S.315 , but by the time you reach the stage of S.313 and see that odds are already quite against you, then it is should be seriously considered by accused to become the witness (no affidavit). Mostly complainant fails to prove the liability and takes the help of presumption under S.139, so an accused equipped with a good or probable evidence against any of the material story of complainant must come forward and get himslef examined after due deliberation with his counsel. Should avoid controversial and harmful points in examination, because of possibility of some what tough cross examination.