Case Note & Summary
The case involves a criminal revision application filed by Ruksana w/o Afsar Sayyad (original accused) against Kamalbai w/o Gopinath Rathod (original complainant) challenging her conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Omerga, convicted the applicant on 21.02.2013 in S.C.C. No.968 of 2006, sentencing her to simple imprisonment for 15 days. The applicant appealed to the Adhoc District Judge-1, Omerga, in Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2013, who upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court on 16.07.2018. The applicant then filed the present revision. The core dispute centered on a cheque issued by the applicant to the respondent. The applicant argued that the cheque contained a material alteration in the year, which should render the instrument void under Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. She relied on a handwriting expert's opinion to support her claim. However, both lower courts discarded this defence, observing that the expert opinion was created evidence. The respondent contended that the applicant never disputed her signature on the date column and acknowledged the correction, thus the alteration was not material. The High Court framed the short question: whether the alteration in the year of the cheque is a material alteration. The court noted that the applicant admitted her signature on the date column and the correction. Relying on the principle that an alteration made with the consent of the drawer is not material, the court held that the alteration did not render the cheque void. The court found no perversity in the concurrent findings of the courts below and dismissed the revision application, upholding the conviction and sentence as modified by the appellate court.
Headnote
A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Material Alteration - Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - The court considered whether correction of the year on a cheque constitutes a material alteration rendering the instrument void. The accused admitted her signature on the date column and acknowledged the correction. Held that the alteration was not material as it was made with consent and did not affect the validity of the cheque (Paras 7-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the alteration in the year of the cheque is a material alteration that renders the negotiable instrument void against the applicant/accused.
Final Decision
The revision application is dismissed. The conviction and sentence as modified by the appellate court are upheld.
Law Points
- Material alteration
- Negotiable Instruments Act
- Section 138
- Cheque dishonour
- Handwriting expert
- Correction in date
- Admission of signature
