In fact this admitted signature theory itself is bad...
The execution of document is not the proof of signature, the content of the document also must be with the consent or by the signatory. So execution of cheque, which is mandatory to get presumption under S.139, is not the admission of signature alone.
Honestly speaking courts, including Hon SC, have gone mad with this S.138, it is so miserably executed and being executed by the courts in India, that it puts a big question mark if the judiciary has at all understood this law properly or not.
1. S.5 and S.6 is violated.
2. S.20 is not rightly taken up.
3. S.46 and S.138(a) is violated.
4. S.8 is not at all understood,
4. S.139 is not at all understood.
5. S.43 / S.44 is violated.
Cheque : Must have certain amount at the time of delivery.
Holder : is not the possessor, much more than that.
date of Drawn : Is not the date on cheque, it is the date when cheque was delivered.
Hon Apex Court came with an order stating that a PDC is a Bill of Exchange till the date it bears and the date of drawn shall be taken as date on the cheque...which is factually incorrect representation of cheque under S.68 of The Indian Stamp Act and also under S.118 presumption about date which is rebuttable. The Hon Apex Court ignored S.46 of NI Act and S.68 of The Indian Stamp Act, if all these three sections S.138(a), S.46, S.118 of NI Act and S.68 of The Indian Stamp Acts are read together, the illegality of PDC beyond six months / Blank cheque will be very clear.
[In case of Bill of Exchange (non cheque type) the promise to pay can be at a later date, but that does not change the date of drawn.]