Nagaraju vs Lalithamma

N. Ananda, J.—The learned trial Judge has acquitted respondent (hereinafter referred to as ''accused'') for an offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ''the Act''). Therefore, appellant (hereinafter referred to as ''complainant'') is before this court. I have heard Sri K.A. Chandrashekara, learned counsel for complainant.

The learned trial Judge has found that dishonoured cheque (Ex. P.1) has been materially altered. The numericals indicating the year found in Ex. P.1 are materially altered. The complainant has contended that cheque was drawn on 31.01.2006. The material alteration pleaded by accused is visible to naked eye.

The learned counsel for complainant has contended that cheque was not dishonoured on the ground that it was materially altered, but on the ground that account was closed.

When drawer has closed account, banker of drawer will not have an occasion to go through the contents of cheque. The witnesses examined for complainant, including complainant have admitted that there is material alteration in cheque and date has been overwritten. In addition to this, complainant has not produced the challan to prove that he had presented cheque on the date mentioned in the cheque. The complainant has contended that accused had filled the contents of cheque. If accused has filled the contents of cheque, it is not made clear as to how complainant had received cheque, on which, date has been materially altered.

The learned trial Judge on proper appreciation of evidence has held that there is material alteration of date of cheque. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that cheque was drawn and issued on 31.01.2006. The learned trial Judge has held that it is not possible to hold that cheque was presented on 31.01.2006.

The complainant has pleaded that endorsement of dishonour of cheque was received by him on 23.02.2006 and he caused notice on 02.03.2006. The complainant has not placed any material to show that cheque was presented on 31.01.2006. In the circumstances, complainant has failed to prove that he had caused legal notice as required u/s 138(c) of the Act.

As already stated, material alteration of date of cheque is visible to naked eye. In the circumstances, the learned trial Judge was justified in acquitting accused. There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. In the result, I pass the following:--

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.