The Karnataka High Court allowed an appeal filed u/s 378(4) of Cr.P.C, praying to set aside the impugned judgment dated 26-10-2018 passed by the additional A.C.M.M. acquitting the respondent/accused for the offense p/u/s 138 of the N.I. Act. The Court observed that when the accused herself has admitted that she has issued a signed blank cheque to the complainant, it cannot be said that the body of the cheque is materially altered.
Brief Facts:
The complainant was working as a teacher and she knew the accused for several years. The accused in July 2016 approached the complainant and requested the complainant to lend an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- for her granddaughter’s education and also for family necessities. The complainant agreed to pay the said amount. The accused had promised the complainant that she would repay the amount as early as possible. However, even after a lapse of almost one year, the amount was not refunded. Therefore, the complainant insisted the accused to repay the said amount. Then, the accused in June 2017 issued a cheque and asked the complainant to present the same for encashment. When the said cheque was presented for encashment, it came to be dishonored as “could not be proceeded due to alteration”. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record of both the parties, recorded the acquittal. Hence, the present petition.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Trial Court concluded that the cheque had been altered, however, Ex. P2 is an endorsement of the bank, in the said endorsement, there is no such averment. In the absence of such averment, the Trial Court recorded the acquittal on the same ground appears to be not proper and perverse.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. However, the complainant materially altered the number ‘1’ as ‘2’ and presented it for encashment. Though the complainant filed a case against the daughter of the accused, the complainant has admitted that the amount which was given to the daughter of the accused is also included in the present cheque.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the Appellate Court has to interfere only where it is noticed the perversity or error committed by the Trial Court in recording the acquittal in a case of appeal against acquittal. Where one person signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accordance with law relating to negotiable instruments either wholly blank or having written thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument, he thereby gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete, as the case may be, upon it a negotiable instrument, for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp. Once the authority is given to the complainant, it cannot be said that it is materially altered.
The Court observed that any material alteration of a negotiable instrument renders the same void as against any person who is a party thereto at the time of making such alteration and does not consent thereto. When the accused herself has admitted that she has issued a signed blank cheque to the complainant, it cannot be said that the body of the cheque is materially altered. When the accused/drawer of the cheque signed the cheque and issued a blank cheque to the complainant, if any alteration appears on the body of the cheque, such alterations need not require the consent of the accused / drawer of the cheque.
The decision of the Court:
The Karnataka High Court, allowing the appeal, held that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside.
Case Title: Smt. H B Bhagyalakshmi v. Smt. Cheluvamma
Coram: Hon’ble Justice S Rachaiah
Case no.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2104 OF 2018 (A)
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. H B Rudresh
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Amruthesh C
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
