When Alteration Of Cheque Is Patently Clear, Further Evidence Not Necessary : Supreme Court Sets Aside S.138NI Act Conviction
The Supreme Court has set aside a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), after finding that the cheque had been visibly and materially altered from Rs 10,000 to Rs. 1,10,000.A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva allowed the appeal filed by the accused, holding that the High Court and the Trial Court have erred in calling...
The Supreme Court has set aside a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), after finding that the cheque had been visibly and materially altered from Rs 10,000 to Rs. 1,10,000.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva allowed the appeal filed by the accused, holding that the High Court and the Trial Court have erred in calling for additional proof of the alteration.
“When the alteration of the cheque is patently clear on the face of it, the Courts below ought not to have insisted on any further evidence in that regard.”, the bench observed.
The case arose from a complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act against the appellant. The Trial Court had convicted him in 2014, accepting the complainant's allegations that the cheque was for Rs 1,10,000. An appeal was filed before the Sessions Court, Koppal which was dismissed in 2019. A criminal revision was filed before the Karnataka High Court which allowed relief only to the extent of reducing Rs 1,15,000 to Rs. 1,10,000 while declining the appellant's plea that the cheque had been altered. The appellant had already paid the reduced amount pursuant to the High Court's order.
The bench found that the cheque in question itself bore visible signs of tampering.
“Bare perusal of the said cheque clearly demonstrates that the words 'One Lak' were interjected before the words 'Ten Thousand only', and the numerical '1' was inserted in the box, before '10,000/-'”, it observed.
Holding that such a manifest alteration did not require any further proof, the Court observed that the High Court and the Trial Court “ought not to have insisted on any further evidence” once the tampering was evident on the face of it. It concluded that the “material alteration of the cheque was manifest,” and that the conviction of the appellant “cannot be sustained.”
Setting aside the conviction, the bench also directed that the amount received by the complainant pursuant to the High Court's orders be reimbursed to the appellant within four weeks. The Court also granted the appellant liberty to apply for release, with interest, of any part of the deposited amount still lying to the credit of the case before the concerned court.
Case Title: Rajasab v Hulagappa
Appearance:
For Appellant: Mr TRB Shivkumar, AOR; Mr Anil Katarki, Adv; Ms Veena Katarki, Adv; Mr Deva Vrat Anand, Adv
For Respondent: Mr Agam Sharma, AOR; Ms Akhila Wali, Adv
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 714