ORDER : ARVIND KUMAR VERMA, J. This Acquittal appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) is filed by the appellant/complaint being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 05.02.2019 passed in Complaint Case No. 4345/2015 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, district Durg whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “NI Act”). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/appellant and the accused/respondent are shopkeepers in the same market and are known to each other. In the year 2015, accused/respondent borrowed Rs. 2,50,000/- from the appellant for some personal work and he gave a cheque of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the complainant/appellant on 20.05.2015. It is alleged that thereafter when the appellant presented the cheque on 22.02.2015 in the bank, it was dishonored on account of insufficient balance. The appellant sent a legal notice on 04.06.2015 which was received by the accused/respondent but even after receiving the notice, he did not deposit or return the amount. It is alleged that the accused/respondent failed to pay the amount to the complainant and therefore the complainant filed a case before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, District Durg. However, the learned Magistrate has disposed of the complaint stating that there was overwriting in the amount (in figures) mentioned in the cheque Ex.P-1 and that no document has been produced regarding borrowing of loan of Rs. 2,50,000/- by the accused/respondent and the complainant was not able to prove the charge against the accused under Section 138 of the NI Act and acquitted him of the charges. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submits that the Judicial Magistrate has not properly appreciated the evidence of the complainant and the documents submitted by him before passing the judgment. He submits that the acquittal of the accused/respondent is improper, incorrect and bad in the eyes of law. He submits that the trial court ought to have considered the signatures of the respondent on the cheque. Lastly, he submits that the finding recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate is perverse, erroneous and contrary to law. 4. On the other hand, counsel for the accused/respondent submits that in the space meant for writing the value of the cheque in figures, the drawer has overwritten the figure on the cheque and had initiated above it. Lastly, he submits that the finding recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate is perverse, erroneous and contrary to law. 4. On the other hand, counsel for the accused/respondent submits that in the space meant for writing the value of the cheque in figures, the drawer has overwritten the figure on the cheque and had initiated above it. Therefore the correction duly acknowledged by the drawer will not amount to material alternation to attract Section 87 of the NI Act. The return of cheque stating “alternation on instrument other than date filled” will attract the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that in this case, the cheque was presented for collection on 20.05.2015 and same was returned on 22.05.2015. It is the case of the complainant that the accused has no sufficient fund in his account and alteration in date figures/words requires drawers signature while issuing the cheque. The correction if not duly endorsed by the drawer will amount to material alternation. The claim of the respondent that the cheque is void due to material alternation is sustainable. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. The short point involved in the present case is whether the alternation in the subject cheque will attract Section 87 of the NIA Act, if not, whether return of cheque for that reason will not attract offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. “Section 87 : Effect of material alteration 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, 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 indorses 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. The above sections will apply if the following three conditions are satisfied: I) alternation must be material ii) alternation must have been done without the consent of the party. iii) Alternation must not have been done to carry out common intention of the original parties. 7. The provisions of this Section are subject to those of Sections 20,49,86 and 125. The above sections will apply if the following three conditions are satisfied: I) alternation must be material ii) alternation must have been done without the consent of the party. iii) Alternation must not have been done to carry out common intention of the original parties. 7. On seeing the subject cheque (Ex.P-1), one could find that there is material alternation in the cheque. Complainant Triloki Kumar Dheemar (PW-1) has admitted in his statement that ^^;g dguk lgh gS fd izn'kZ ih-1 ds psd ds vadksa esa fy[kh jde ds tks dkaV NkaV fd;k x;k gS ftlds vk/kkj ij vkjksih ds cSad ds }kjk izn'kZ ih 1 ds psd dks fcuk Hkqxrku fd, okil fd, tkus ij cSad ds }kjk gh tkudkjh fn;k tk ldrk gS fd psd dks mUgksaus fdl vk/kkj ij vuknfjr fd;k gSA^^ He has also admitted in para 17 that ^^;g dguk lgh gS fd eSaus vkjksih dks m/kkj jde nsus ds laca/k esa dksbZ fy[kk iढh ugha dh FkhA^^ 8. When a cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount to another person to discharge whole or part of debt or liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of the account is insufficient to honor the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account. To infer that the cheque was issued without sufficient fund, it is always looked at the memo of the bank which will disclose the reason for return. The cheque may be returned for reasons like mutilation, signature difference, insufficient fund, exceeds arrangement, stop payment, alternation etc. Ex.P-1 is a return cheque of the bank which shows that the cheque was returned due to “insufficient funds” and “alternation in date, figures/words requires drawers signatures”. In Ex.P-1, it is written in figures “Rs. 25,000/-” and after scoring it off, it is written number ‘2.50000/-’ but the last zero on ‘/’ and scoring was done. In the box meant for writing the value in figues, it is written as Rs. 25,000/-.Thus it is very clear that whatever correction made in the cheque, there is no signature made by the accused on the cheque Ex.P-1. 25,000/-” and after scoring it off, it is written number ‘2.50000/-’ but the last zero on ‘/’ and scoring was done. In the box meant for writing the value in figues, it is written as Rs. 25,000/-.Thus it is very clear that whatever correction made in the cheque, there is no signature made by the accused on the cheque Ex.P-1. Therefore, the said correction is a material alternation to attract Section 87 of the NI Act. 9. In the light of the above, this Court holds that the correction made in the subject cheque is by the payee himself. Therefore it will fall within the meaning of material alternation to attract Section 87 of the NI Act. Hence it is not a valid cheque for all purpose. The bank has returned for the reason of alternation found on the face of the instrument. These are the factual aspects for appreciation based on evidence. Thus after hearing counsel for the appellant/complainant and the accused/respondent, considering the material available on record as well as the judgment impugned passed by the learned Magistrate, it has been held that the cheque given to the appellant/complainant by the accused/respondent for the discharge of any debt or liability against the complainant is not affected and therefore the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, acquitting the respondent of the aforesaid offence is just and proper and does not call for any interference. In such circumstances, the trial court has rightly taken a view that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt and the view taken is a possible one. 10. In the matter of Jafarudheen Vs. State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440 , in respect of scope of appeal against acquittal, the following was observed vide para 25 : “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trialcourt's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that ensures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 11. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the trial Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 12. Thus, the Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.