JUDGMENT : (T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J.) This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant, who was the 1st respondent/complainant in Criminal Appeal No.311 of 2013, on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Kovvur (for short, "Additional Sessions Judge"), challenging the judgment, dated 12.06.2014, whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the Criminal Appeal filed by the 2nd respondent/accused, setting aside the conviction judgment, dated 26.07.2013 in C.C.No.66 of 2012, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur (for short, "the trial Court"), under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, "N.I. Act"). 2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court. 3. The appellant herein, in the capacity of the complainant before the trial Court filed a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act r/w section 200 of Cr.P.C. 4. The case of the complainant is that the accused borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from him on 09.04.2009 for his family expenses and medical expenses and executed a promissory note in his favour promising to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum either to him or to his order on demand. Despite several requests from the complainant, the accused has been postponing the same using various excuses. This lead the complainant to file a suit in O.S.No.163 of 2012 against the accused. Subsequently, on 10.04.2012, the accused gave the complainant a Cheque (No.810128) amounting to Rs.50,000/-, drawn on State Bank of India, Kovvur, as a part payment. However, when the complainant presented the Cheque for collection at Vijaya Bank, Kovvur Branch, on 11.04.2012, it was returned on 16.04.2012 due to "insufficient funds". The complainant informed the same to the accused, but he did not fulfill the repayment. Later, the complainant sent a legal notice on 18.04.2012. Despite receiving the said notice on 23.04.2012, the accused neither provided any response nor repaid the owed amount. 5. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur, took cognizance under Section 138 of N.I. Act. After the appearance of the accused and after furnishing copies of documents under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., he was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. concerning the allegations in the complainant case, for which he denied the allegations, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. After the appearance of the accused and after furnishing copies of documents under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., he was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. concerning the allegations in the complainant case, for which he denied the allegations, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. During the trial on behalf of the complainant, the complainant himself was examined as PW1 and marked Exs.P1 to P8. After the closure of the evidence of the complainant, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. concerning the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence, for which he denied the same and stated that he has no oral or defence witnesses to prove his case. 7. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur, convicted the accused for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act under Section 255 (2) of Cr.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by the judgment, the unsuccessful accused filed Criminal Appeal No.311 of 2013 before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kovvur, which was allowed by setting aside the trial Court judgment. Felt aggrieved, the complainant filed the present Criminal Appeal. 8. Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the appellant, would contend that the Lower Appellate Court went on all surmises and conjectures and erroneously allowed the appeal and the Lower Appellate Court failed to consider that there is no ground taken by the 2nd respondent about material alteration either during the trial or appeal. Despite the absence of argument, the Lower Appellate Court delved into the matter and observed that the appellant failed to clarify the material alteration. Furthermore, he contends that the lower Appellate Court should not have examined this aspect without the 2nd respondent presenting any assertion or basis for it. If the Lower Appellate Court believed that there was a material alteration; it had the option to send the document to an Expert for evaluation in order to determine whether any alterations were made to the Cheque. 9. Per contra, Sri Bathula Sanjaiah Gandhi learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/accused, would contend that the learned Additional Sessions Judge correctly acquit the accused for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The reasons given by the learned Judge require no interference. 10. 9. Per contra, Sri Bathula Sanjaiah Gandhi learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/accused, would contend that the learned Additional Sessions Judge correctly acquit the accused for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The reasons given by the learned Judge require no interference. 10. Now, the point that arises for determination is: Did the learned Additional Sessions Judge commit any error in acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881? POINT: 11. It is the evidence of the appellant/complainant as PW1 that the accused borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from him on 09.04.2009 and executed a promissory note, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. As the accused failed to fulfill the repayment, the complainant initiated legal action by filing a suit in O.S.No.163 of 2012 on the last limitation date on 09.04.2012. On 10.04.2012, the accused approached the complainant and issued a cheque referred to as Ex.P3, amounting to Rs.50,000/- drawn from the State Bank of India. To substantiate the complainant's case, he relied on Ex.P1-promissory note and Ex.P2-certified copy of the decree and judgment in O.S.No.163 of 2012. It is not in dispute that the accused did not contest the suit and Ex-parte decree had been passed by Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur. 12. According to the defence case, the complainant's father-in-law obtained blank cheques and pronotes from the accused. He obtained a promissory note from the accused and created Ex.P1-promissory note in the name of his son-in-law. Additionally, the defence asserts that Ex.P3-Cheque was manipulated by filling in the blanks making it seem as if the Cheque was issued on 10.04.2012. As rightly observed by the Additional Sessions Judge that the accused did not put forth the contest admitting his signature in the blank Cheque. The accused also did not explicitly deny that the signature on Ex.P3 was not his own. Admittedly, the accused is a Z.P.High School Teacher. He suffered a decree in the O.S.No.163 of 2012 based on the Ex.P1-promissory note. Additionally, it is undisputed that even though the accused received Ex.P7-Legal Notice, he did not provide any response clarifying his position on the matters raised in Ex.P7-Notice. Admittedly, the accused is a Z.P.High School Teacher. He suffered a decree in the O.S.No.163 of 2012 based on the Ex.P1-promissory note. Additionally, it is undisputed that even though the accused received Ex.P7-Legal Notice, he did not provide any response clarifying his position on the matters raised in Ex.P7-Notice. Considering these circumstances, the trial Court concluded that the accused's signature on Ex.P3-cheque should be regarded as admitted, given that the accused neither contested the signature during the cross-examination of PW1 nor asserted in court that the signature on Ex.P3 wasn't his own. The trial Court based this decision on PW1's testimony along with the evidence presented through Ex.P1 and Ex.P3, which collectively indicated the presence of a legally binding debt. 13. During the cross-examination of PW1, a suggestion is put forth indicating the presence of a material alteration in the Ex.P3 Cheque. The Additional Sessions Judge made an observation regarding Ex.P3 Cheque, noting that to the naked eye, there seems to be a change in the date on the Cheque, which becomes even more apparent when the Cheque is viewed through a magnifying glass. Upon closer examination with the magnifying glass, it is evident that the original date on the Cheque was 10.01.2011, and it was subsequently altered to 10.04.2012. The alteration involved changing the last digit 1' in 2011 to 2'. Additionally, the alteration of the month from 1' to 4' in the date is distinctly visible without any visual aid and even more obvious under the magnifying glass. After careful inspection using the magnifying glass, this Court confirms the Appellate Court's earlier observation to be accurate. 14. The Appellate Court's correct observation regarding the alteration of the date on the Cheque holds good. This alteration is easily detectable without any magnifying instrument and becomes even more conspicuous when Ex.P3 Cheque is inspected using a magnifying glass. Upon reviewing the trial Court's judgment, it becomes apparent that it did not thoroughly examine this date alteration issue. Instead, the trial Court seemed to rely on the presumption drawn from the complainant's presentation of the legally enforceable debt, supported by the Ex.P1-promissory note and the Ex.P2-Ex parte decree. 15. It is pertinent to note that the accused neither gave any reply to the statutory notice nor entered into the witness box to provide evidence. Instead, the trial Court seemed to rely on the presumption drawn from the complainant's presentation of the legally enforceable debt, supported by the Ex.P1-promissory note and the Ex.P2-Ex parte decree. 15. It is pertinent to note that the accused neither gave any reply to the statutory notice nor entered into the witness box to provide evidence. Based on the same, the defence contention cannot be ignored, as it is established deliberate alteration of the date on the Cheque. It is not the complainant's case that the said alteration was done with the accused's knowledge and consent. There is a material alteration on that account. Provisions of Section 87 of N.I. Act hit by Ex.P3-Cheque. In a decision reported in Arumugam vs M.S.Narasaiah (1998(0) AIR (Mad) 67), wherein the Madras High Court held as under: "8. xx Simply because there is no plea concerning the material alteration, it cannot be ignored when the evidence is available. 16. The judgment rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge indicates that the respondent (accused) raised the issue of whether the complaint was maintainable. According to the complainant's account, Ex.P3-Cheque was given as a means to settle the debt outlined in the original Ex.P1 promissory note. It's undisputed that the suit was filed on the last day of limitation i.e., April 9, 2012, and was registered as O.S.No.163 of 2012 on April 21, 2012. As previously mentioned, the complainant maintains that on April 10, 2012, the accused handed over Ex.P3-Cheque amounting to Rs.50,000/-. The accused's argument is that even if one assumes the complainant's narrative is accurate, attempting to enforce the Cheque issued after the statutory limitation period for the purpose of partially repaying the debt covered by the promissory note is not legally enforceable. 17. In a decision reported in Mandapalli Nirmalatha vs State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh and another (2012(2) ALD (Cri) 40), the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh observed as under: "6. Xxx Merely because the civil suit is pending, it cannot be said that the Cheque can be presented by the complainant at any time during the pendency of the said civil suit. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh and another (2012(2) ALD (Cri) 40), the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh observed as under: "6. Xxx Merely because the civil suit is pending, it cannot be said that the Cheque can be presented by the complainant at any time during the pendency of the said civil suit. The cause of action to file the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is an independent cause of action and the Cheque therefore shall be presented by the complainant within the period of validity of the debt borrowed. In the instant case, the Cheque was presented beyond the period of limitation and therefore, it will not give rise to any cause of action." 18. By relying on the principles laid down in the decision, this Court finds that the complaint is not maintainable even if it is assumed that there was no material alteration in the date as observed above. 19. Conversely, if the original date on Ex.P3 Cheque, which is January 10, 2011, is taken into account, the Cheque was not presented for encashment within the stipulated six-month period as outlined by Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act). The trial Court's accurate observation holds that one of the crucial elements required to establish an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act has not been satisfied. Even, if it is hypothetically considered the date of the Cheque as April 10, 2012, the complaint still lacks validity because the Cheque was acquired after the expiration of the prescribed limitation period. Furthermore, the evident alteration of the Cheque's date undermines the complaint's viability, irrespective of whether the original or altered date is taken into consideration. 20. Based on the settled legal position and careful examination of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge's Judgment, this Court concurs with the conclusion reached by the Additional Sessions Judge. 21. In light of the analysis, the trial Court's conclusion was found to be erroneous, and the appellate Court's Judgment aligns with the settled legal position. The point is accordingly answered in favour of the accused and against the complainant. The finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge warrants no interference, and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 22. 21. In light of the analysis, the trial Court's conclusion was found to be erroneous, and the appellate Court's Judgment aligns with the settled legal position. The point is accordingly answered in favour of the accused and against the complainant. The finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge warrants no interference, and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 22. As a result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment dated 12.06.2014 in Crl.A.No.311 of 2013 on the file of Additional District & Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Kovvur. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.