Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1197 (RAJ)

Jagdish Chandra Balai v. State of Rajasthan

2023-05-29

FARJAND ALI

body2023
ORDER 1. The instant criminal leave to appeal has been preferred by the leave-petitioner Jagdish Chandra Balai S/o Sh. Heera Lal Balai against the judgment dated 20.03.2018 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.2, Bhilwara in Criminal Case No.969/2016 whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the accused-respondents from the charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The said judgment of acquittal is under assail before this Court. 2. In nutshell the facts of the case as per the petitioner are that on 16.07.2012, the leave-petitioner has filed a complaint before the trial Court alleging inter alia that he lend some money to the accused-respondent to meet out his household needs, in lieu thereof, the respondent gave a cheque No.361396 dated 24.05.2012 amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Bhilwara, which upon presentation before the Bank concerned got dishonored with a remark that 'Account is dormant'. Thereafter, a registered legal notice was served upon the accused-respondent but no heed was paid by him. Thus, the said complaint under Section 138 NI Act has been filed before the learned Court of Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.2, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned trial Court'). After rigor of trial and meticulous examination of the evidence as well as considering the legal and factual aspects of the matter, the learned trial Court, after examining the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as also after affording requisite opportunity of hearing to both the parties passed the judgment of acquittal by assigning proper reasoning vide judgment dated 20.03.2019, and acquitted the accused-respondent from the offences under Section 138 of the NI Act. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the judgment impugned as well as the relevant record of the case. 4. From the naked eyes, it can easily be noticed that the 5th zero in the column of mentioning of rupees, additional zero has been inserted subsequently. The difference of ink is very much conspicuous. Perused the judgment impugned as well as the relevant record of the case. 4. From the naked eyes, it can easily be noticed that the 5th zero in the column of mentioning of rupees, additional zero has been inserted subsequently. The difference of ink is very much conspicuous. The defence taken by the accused regarding material alteration is well founded and is getting corroboration from the experts opinion Ex.D/3, which is the report of a private expert, as per which, the handwriting, characteristics on two places indicating that the same were not written at the same time and possesses addition/alteration of letters present in the forwarding word and the numeric value Rs.10,00,000/-. 5. Cheque is a negotiable instrument and as per Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, any material alteration of a negotiable instrument renders the same void as against anyone who is a party thereto at the time of making such alteration and does not consent thereto. Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is reproduced as under:- 87. Effect of material alteration.-Any material alteration of a negotiable instrument renders the same void as against any one who is a party thereto at the time of making such alteration and does not consent thereto, unless it was made in order to carry out the common intention of the original parties; Alteration by indorsee.-And any such alteration, if made by an indorsee, discharges his indorser from all liability to him in respect of the consideration thereof. The provisions of this section are subject to those of sections 20, 49, 86 and 125. 6. There is specific plea of the defence that significant alteration was made by the petitioner in order to take undue advantage by making a cheque of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- which amounts to a material alteration and thus in view of the provision contained under Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the act of alteration makes the negotiable instrument void against anyone. The learned trial Judge has prudently discussed the material evidence in this regard and has rightly acquitted the accused respondent. 7. Accordingly, there is no force in the instant leave to appeal and this Court does not deem it appropriate to permit the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the judgment of acquittal, therefore, the same deserves dismissal and is dismissed as such. 8. Record of the court below be returned back.