Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, filed by the respondent against the petitioner for dishonour of a cheque for Rs.10 lakhs. The petitioner was the accused before the trial court. The complaint alleged that the accused borrowed Rs.10 lakhs for his proprietary business, executed an on-demand promissory note on 19.04.2007, and issued a cheque dated 15.09.2010 towards part payment. When presented, the cheque was dishonoured, and after statutory notice, the complaint was lodged. The accused denied any transaction with the complainant, asserting that the cheque was given to one Manoj Gera as security for a loan and that the complainant misused it. He also pointed out that the date on the cheque was materially altered, with a handwriting expert’s report confirming the alteration. The trial court convicted the accused, finding that the accused admitted his signature, which raised presumptions under Sections 139 and 118 of the NI Act that he failed to rebut. The appellate court affirmed the conviction. The accused then filed a revision before the High Court. The central legal issue was whether the material alteration in the date vitiated the cheque under Section 87 of the NI Act and whether the accused had rebutted the presumptions. The petitioner argued that the date alteration was proved and unchallenged, making the cheque void under Section 87 read with Section 65 of the Contract Act, and that the complaint through a power of attorney lacked personal knowledge. The respondent contended that the alteration existed before issuance, as evidenced by the accused’s own photocopy (Ex.D1) which showed the same alteration, indicating the accused had full knowledge, and that he could not take advantage of his own alteration. The High Court noted that since the signature was admitted, presumptions under Sections 139 and 118 were attracted. The accused’s contradictory suggestions in cross-examination and the hostile testimony of DW2 weakened his defence. Regarding material alteration, the court observed that Ex.D1, a photocopy produced by the accused himself, displayed the same alteration, implying that the alteration existed before the cheque was handed over and was within the knowledge of the accused. The court held that where the drawer has knowledge of the alteration, Section 87 does not afford protection, and the instrument remains enforceable. The court found no jurisdictional error or perversity in the concurrent findings and dismissed the revision, upholding the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Evidence Law - Presumptions Under Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 139, 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - When the signature on a cheque is admitted, a presumption arises that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt; the accused must rebut this by leading cogent evidence. In this case, contradictions in the accused's defence and a hostile witness failed to rebut the presumption. (Paras 13-14) B) Negotiable Instruments Act - Material Alteration - Section 87, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - A material alteration in a cheque, such as changing the date, renders it void under Section 87 unless the drawer had knowledge of the alteration before issuance. The accused’s possession of a photocopy of the cheque showing the same alteration (Ex.D1) established that he was aware of the alteration before handing it over, thereby precluding him from avoiding liability on that ground. (Paras 15-16) C) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction - Section 397/401, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The revisional court does not reappreciate evidence in the same manner as an appellate court; it only interferes if the concurrent findings are perverse or suffer from material irregularity. The court found no such infirmity. (Para 12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the material alteration in the date on the cheque vitiates the instrument and allows the accused to escape liability under Section 138 NI Act
Final Decision
Revision petition dismissed; conviction and sentence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act upheld.
Law Points
- Admission of signature on cheque raises presumptions under Sections 139 and 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- accused must rebut. Material alteration under Section 87 renders instrument void unless alteration made with knowledge of drawer
- possession of photocopy showing alteration indicates knowledge and precludes defence. Revisional court does not reappreciate evidence unless concurrent findings are perverse or illegal.
