Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2026) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 21397
Decided on: 17.07.2026
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. Anil Katarki, Adv., Ms. Veena Katarki, Adv., Mr. Deva Vrat Anand, Adv., Mr. T.R.B. Sivakumar, AOR
For Respondent(s):
Ms. Akhila Wali, Adv., Mr. Agam Sharma, AOR
***
Dishonour of cheque -- Material alteration -- Cheque originally made out for Rs.10,000/-, altered to Rs.1,10,000/- -- Material alteration apparent on face of cheque -- Courts below ought not to have insisted upon any further evidence -- Conviction cannot be sustained.
***
A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Dishonour of cheque -- Material alteration -- Cheque originally made out for Rs.10,000/- altered to Rs.1,10,000/- -- Words “One Lak” inserted before “Ten Thousand only” and numerical “1” inserted before “10,000/-” -- Material alteration manifest on bare perusal of cheque -- Courts below erred in insisting upon further evidence in that regard -- Conviction of appellant for dishonour of cheque, held, cannot be sustained -- Judgments of Courts below set aside.
(Paras 4 to 8)
B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Dishonour of cheque -- Material alteration -- Effect -- Where alteration in cheque is patently clear and manifest on the face of cheque itself, no further evidence is required to establish such material alteration -- Conviction based upon dishonour of materially altered cheque cannot be sustained.
(Paras 6 to 8)
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant, Rajasab, is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25.04.2025 passed by a learned Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, in his Criminal Revision Petition No. 100116/2019.
3. By the said judgment and order, the learned Judge allowed the revision in part. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the learned Judge reduced the fine amount from Rs.1,15,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifteen thousand only) to Rs.1,10,000/- (Rupees one lakh ten thousand only). This amount was directed to be paid as compensation to the complainant within the extended period of time. We are informed that the appellant paid the same pursuant to the aforestated order.
4. The question for consideration is whether the cheque in question was made out for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) or whether it was materially altered so as to make it for a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- (Rupees one lakh ten thousand).
5. The trial Court, vide judgment dated 11.08.2014, convicted the appellant, accepting the plea of the complainant that the cheque was made out for a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- (Rupees one lakh ten thousand only). The learned District & Sessions Judge, Koppal, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant, vide judgment dated 25.03.2019. The High Court was also not inclined to accept the plea of the appellant that the cheque in question had been materially altered.
6. A copy of the cheque in question is placed on record at page 30. 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/-’.
7. 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 material alteration of the cheque was manifest. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the conviction of the appellant, Rajasab, on the ground that the aforestated cheque was dishonoured, upon presentation, cannot be sustained.
8. All the judgments in question are, accordingly, set aside. The amount received by the respondent pursuant to the aforestated orders shall be reimbursed to the appellant within a period of four weeks from today.
9. In the event any part of the amount deposited by the appellant is still lying to the credit of the case before the Court concerned, the appellant is at liberty to move an appropriate application for release of the said amount along with interest accrued thereon, if any.
10. The appeal is allowed in the aforestated terms.
11. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
Appeal allowed.
********