ORDER : 1. Since all these applications seeking special leave to appeal arise out of similar orders passed by learned Presiding Officer in different complaints filed by the present applicant-original complainant against the respondent-accused in respect of dishonour of cheque in similar set of transaction, raises common question of law, are heard together and are decided by this common order, by treating the Criminal Misc. Application No.12103 of 2023 as a lead matter and the facts are taken from it for the sake of convenience. 2. This application seeking special leave to appeal under Section 378 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1908, (for short, “the Code”) has been filed at the instance of the original complainant a partnership firm through his partner, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 15.04.2023 passed below Exh.63 by the learned Presiding Officer of Special Negotiable Instrument Act Court, Rajkot in Criminal Case No.1573 of 2011, acquitting the original accused- respondent herein for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short, “the Act”). 3. In nutshell, the case of the original complainant before the trial court was : (I) The complainant Mr. Pareshbhai Thakkar is the partner of a partnership firm, running in the name and style of M/s. Pari Panjkajkumar Jashubhai. The said partnership firm-original complainant in past, had maintained business relations with the respondent no.2-Arvindbhai Hajabhai Parmar, who is the proprietor of M/s. Shivkrupa Transport. It is the case of the complainant that because of such acquaintance, the respondent- accused had approached the complainant firm seeking financial help for development of his business. Since the complainant firm was engaged in the business of lending of amount of discounting voucher, had agreed to such request. (II) It is the case of the complainant that total amount of Rs.25,53,353/- was outstanding from the respondent-accused as against the aforesaid borrowed amount, the respondent-accused had issued ten different cheques of appropriate amounts. The cheque bearing no.154185 was drawn in the name of complainant-firm on 08.12.2009 for an amount of Rs.1,39,282/- from the bank of State Bank of Indore, Rajkot. It is further contended that while borrowing the amount, the respondent had also signed promissory note dated 08.12.2009. The complainant had presented such cheque for realization of the aforesaid amount on 11.12.2009, which was dishonoured. It is further contended that while borrowing the amount, the respondent had also signed promissory note dated 08.12.2009. The complainant had presented such cheque for realization of the aforesaid amount on 11.12.2009, which was dishonoured. (III) It is the case of the complainant that on having realized the part payment towards the commission, the time period for repayment of the amount, was extended as requested by the respondent-accused in order to maintain business relations. The cheque bearing no.154185 dated 11.12.2009 of an amount of Rs.1,39,282/- was re-valid by the respondent-accused on 23.11.2010. It is the case of the complainant that the date was scrolled off by entering the correct date as 23.11.2010 on the disputed cheque. The aforesaid cheque was once again presented before the bank on 30.11.2010, however, the said cheque was, once again, dishonoured as reported by the concerned bank. In such circumstances, the original complainant was constrained to issue statutory notice dated 18.12.2010, which was duly served upon the respondent-accused on 21.12.2010, in spite of specific demand being raised for repayment of the outstanding total amount of Rs.25,53,353/- within a period of 15 days. (IV) The respondent-accused had failed to respond to such legal notice. On expiry of the period of notice and in absence of any repayment of the aforesaid outstanding amount, the complainant was constrained to approach the court of learned Presiding Officer of Special Negotiable Instrument Act Court, Rajkot, by lodging complaint under Section 138 of the Act. The said complaint was presented on 02.02.2011, which was registered as Criminal Case No.1573 of 2011 and allied cases. In order to appreciate the relevant details of the individual cases, the summary of the same in the tabular form, is reproduced hereunder: Sr. No. Criminal Case No. Cheque No. Bank Name Amount 1 1572/2011 154183 State Bank of Indore, Rajkot Rs.2,00,742/- 2. 1574/2022 581253 Rajkot Comm Co. Bank Ltd. Rajkot Rs.4,25,000/- 3. 1576/2011 581252 Rajkot Comm Co. Bank Ltd. Rajkot Rs.4,50,000/- 4. 1578/2011 154176 State Bank of Indore, Rajkot Rs.2,36,000/- 5. 1580/2011 613866 Rajkot Comm Co. Bank Ltd. Rajkot Rs.71,000/- 6. 1571/2011 154182 State Bank of Indore, Rajkot Rs.1,21,000/- 7. 1573/2011 154185 State Bank of Indore, Rajkot Rs.1,39,282/- 8. 1575/2011 154184 State Bank of Indore, Rajkot Rs.3,00,000/- 9. 1577/2011 154178 State Bank of Indore, Rajkot Rs.1,51,407/- 10. 1579/2011 581262 Rajkot Comm Co. 1578/2011 154176 State Bank of Indore, Rajkot Rs.2,36,000/- 5. 1580/2011 613866 Rajkot Comm Co. Bank Ltd. Rajkot Rs.71,000/- 6. 1571/2011 154182 State Bank of Indore, Rajkot Rs.1,21,000/- 7. 1573/2011 154185 State Bank of Indore, Rajkot Rs.1,39,282/- 8. 1575/2011 154184 State Bank of Indore, Rajkot Rs.3,00,000/- 9. 1577/2011 154178 State Bank of Indore, Rajkot Rs.1,51,407/- 10. 1579/2011 581262 Rajkot Comm Co. Bank Ltd. Rajkot Rs.4,60,922/- Total amount of all cheques Rs.25,53,353/- (V) Before the trial court, the verification of the original complainant- Pareshbhai Jasubhai Thakkar, who claims to be the partner of complainant firm- M/s. Pari Pankajkumar Jashubhai was recorded and noticing the compliance of the statutory provisions, the learned Magistrate, prima facie, having satisfied about the maintainability of the complaint, had issued summons upon the respondent-accused, which was duly served. The plea of the accused was recorded at Exh.14, wherein the respondent- accused had denied the case of the original complainant of having committed any offene punishable under section 138 of the Act. The trial court proceeded with the summary proceedings. The original complainant had lead oral as well as documentary evidences in support of his case. (VI) The affidavit in deposition of the original complainant has been placed on record at Exh.18. Along with the said affidavit, list of the documents has also been placed on record, which are referred to and relied upon by the original complainant in his evidence. This includes the cheque discounting voucher/promissory note at Exh.32, the disputed cheque issued by the accused at Exh.33, the cheque return memo issued by the concerned bank at Exh.34, the copy of the legal notice issued by the complainant at Exh.35, the postal slip of notice sent by R.P.A.D. at Exh.36, the U.P.C. certificate of the notice issued at Exh.37, the acknowledgment slip at Exh.38, the extract of the ledger account of the accused at Exh.39, the copy of register of firms at Exh.40, the certificate issued under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act at Exh.41, the copy of partnership deed of the complainant firm at Exh.42, the change report with regard to the partnership of the complainant firm at Exh.43, the release of partner from the complainant firm at Exh.44, the signature card at Exh.54, the letter indicating the details of register with regard to cheque return at Exh.55 and the details of the accounts of the accused at Exh.56. (VII) The respondent-accused has cross-examined the complainant at length. The complainant has also examined witness namely Mr. Dineshbhai Jashubhai Thakkar, who appears to be the partner as well as the brother of the complainant, at Exh.47. Apart from the said witness, the complainant has also examined bank officer Mr. Dhirajsingh Pyarelal Yadav at Exh.53. After closing of the evidence on behalf of the original complainant, the statement of the accused has been recorded under Section 313 of the Code on 21.01.2023, wherein, specific defence is raised by the respondent-accused disputing the re- validation of the cheque as contended by the complainant. It is also stated that no legal notice at any stage, has been served neither any signature has been endorsed in the acknowledgment slip has been placed on record. Apart from the aforesaid defence, the respondent-accused has also shown ignorance with regard to the details of the partners of the partnership firm. The respondent-accused has also denied the factum of compromise as contended by the original complainant. The defence is raised that in fact, the original complainant has misused the cheque by making material alteration in the cheque issued in the year-2009, which was lying with the complainant firm by endorsing new date and the same has been produced after the completion of validity period. By making the aforesaid submissions, the respondent- accused has pleaded not guilty. (VIII) The learned Magistrate upon appreciation of the aforesaid evidence and the arguments canvassed by the learned advocates for the respective parties, by impugned judgment and order dated 15.04.2023, has recorded the acquittal of the respondent-accused mainly by holding that the complaint was not maintainable. Hence, this application seeking leave to appeal at the instance of the original complainant. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Hemal Shah has appeared for and on behalf of the applicant-original complainant and learned APP Ms. M.H. Bhatt has appeared for the respondent-State. 5. At the stage of admission hearing of the application seeking special leave to appeal, after hearing the learned advocate for the applicant and noticing the dispute involved, the matter was adjourned and the learned advocate for the applicant was permitted to place on record the paper book consisting of the relevant documents forming part of the original record. 6. Learned advocate Mr. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Hemal Shah for the applicant has placed on record the extract of the ledger account essentially marked as Exh.39, in support of his argument. At the outset, the learned advocate has referred to the nature of transaction. While referring to the averments made in the original complaint, it was submitted that as rightly recorded by the learned Magistrate, indisputably, the respondent-accused has not disputed the issuance of cheque on 10.12.2009 drawn in the name of original complainant neither the respondent-accused has disputed his signature signed in his capacity as proprietor of Shivkrupa Transport. No challenge was made to the fact with regard to the dishonour of cheque on 10.12.2009. With such circumstances being brought on record and is evident from the cogent material being placed on record by the original complainant, the learned advocate for the applicant submitted that in view of the statutory presumption under Section 118(a) had arisen in favour of the original complainant that the disputed cheque was issued for consideration. 6.1 The learned advocate had further referred to the disputed cheque which is marked as Exh.33 and has submitted that initially the cheque was issued on 10.12.2009 for consideration of an amount of Rs.3 Lakhs. The endorsement of the bank on the disputed cheque is evident that the cheque was in fact presented for realization of the aforesaid amount on 11.12.2009. The learned advocate had further submitted that the original complainant had bona fidely, relied upon the assurance given by the respondent-accused and had waited for some time, considering the past business relations. The learned advocate had further submitted that the respondent-accused had corrected the endorsed date of 11.12.2009 to 23.11.2010 and the necessary endorsement i.e. the signature of the respondent-accused was endorsed below such correction of date. The learned advocate, therefore, submitted that when the parties have mutually agreed and had acted upon for re- validation of the cheque, the complainant had rightly presented the said cheque for realization of the outstanding amount The reliance was placed on the relevant entries reflected appearing in the ledger account, which corroborates the aforesaid facts. Much emphasis was placed on the two debit entries in the ledger account to indicate that on both the occasions, the cheque was entered in the ledger account. Much emphasis was placed on the two debit entries in the ledger account to indicate that on both the occasions, the cheque was entered in the ledger account. The relevant details of the cheque were entered in the ledger account, however, in absence of realization of the aforesaid amount, the legal dues had continued to be reflected in the balance outstanding amount. 6.2 It was also submitted that in fact, the reason assigned by the concerned bank while the cheque was dishonoured on the ground of “insufficient funds” and not on the ground of “cheque being presented beyond the validity period”. He therefore, submitted that the learned Magistrate committed serious error by concluding that no offence was made out under Section 138 of the Act as the cheque, which was dishonured, was presented beyond the validity period. 6.3 While disputing the findings and the reasons assigned by the learned Magistrate on the aspect of part payment of the disputed amount of cheque, the learned advocate submitted that it is an undisputed fact that an amount of Rs.5,04,000/- was received by the original complainant after the issuance of the disputed cheque. In fact, the aforesaid facts have been brought on record by the original complainant in his deposition. However, the learned Magistrate committed serious error in not appreciating the facts in its true perspective. The learned advocate had invited my attention to the relevant dates with regard to the part payment of the aforesaid amount received by the original complainant. It was submitted that an amount of Rs.2,79,000/- was realized by the original complainant on 10.12.2009, which is evident from the entry reflected in the ledger account produced at Exh.39. Apart from the aforesaid amount, further amount of Rs.1,25,000/- was received on 05.12.2012, and thereafter, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was received on 07.01.2013. By referring to the aforesaid dates, the learned advocate had submitted that except for the first part payment received on 10.12.2009, which is indisputably on the date of issuance of disputed cheque i.e.10.12.2009 and prior to the issuance of the legal notice dated 18.12.2010 as well as lodging of the complaint, but so far as the rest of the amounts are concerned, the aforesaid amounts were received pending the criminal case. He therefore, submitted that the learned Magistrate committed serious error in invoking Section 56 of the Act. He therefore, submitted that the learned Magistrate committed serious error in invoking Section 56 of the Act. In the facts of the case, there was no reason for the original complainant to make endorsement of the payment of the aforesaid entries, when the cheque was presented for realization. He therefore, submitted that the learned Magistrate committed error in applying the ratio laid down in the case of Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel Vs. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel & Anr. reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 830. 6.4 The learned advocate for the applicant had further submitted that even accepting the aforesaid fact of repayment of the amount, this Court may kindly take into consideration the fact that indisputably there existed outstanding dues of an amount of Rs.22,05,353/- as evident from the extract of the ledger account as on the date of presentation of cheque. Adjusting the aforesaid amount as against two of the cheuqes, the remaining cheques, in absence of any realization of the remaining amount, the entitlement of the aforesaid amounts and the dishonor of cheque as against the aforesaid outstanding amounts would survive. According to learned advocate, unfortunately, since all the cases were consolidated and were heard and decided together, the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate the relevant entries in the ledger account and had proceeded to dismiss all the cases without appreciating the fact that the legal dues in the form of appropriated amount in respective cheques were outstanding as on the date of presentation of cheque, which has been clearly established by the original complainant as evident from the details of the ledger account produced at Exh.39. 6.5 At this stage, the learned advocate for the applicant had relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Ashishbhai Durlabhbhai Mulani vs. Suchit Sadh, Proprietor, S.K. Agencies reported in 2020 (0) AIJEL-HC 242351. According to the learned advocate in similar set of facts, where the complainant had accepted the part payment of an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- as against the outstanding dues of an amount of Rs. 12,64,170/-. The learned Magistrate had initially recorded order of acquittal by holding that the complaint was not tenable, in view of the fact that part payment of amount of Rs.2,70,000/- was received after the issuance of the disputed cheque. 12,64,170/-. The learned Magistrate had initially recorded order of acquittal by holding that the complaint was not tenable, in view of the fact that part payment of amount of Rs.2,70,000/- was received after the issuance of the disputed cheque. This Court while examining the issue as to whether the part payment exculpate the liability of the offence, observed that, merely because the complainant has bona fidely accepted the part payment towards the cheque amount before the presentation of the cheque for encashment, cannot take away the benefit of Section 138 of the Act, and such interpretation would defeat and stultify the ultimate purpose of Section 138 of the Act. It was held that such a myopic interpretation would not advance the purpose and object of this legislation which attempts to usher in a new commercial morality essential for the health and growth of the economy. 6.6 The learned advocate had further invited my attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Veera Exports vs. T. Kalavathy reported in 2002 (1) SCC 1997, where the Court had observed that in absence of any provision in the Act or in any law, prohibiting the re-validation of the Act when the parties voluntarily revalidate a negotiable instrument, including a cheque, the same cannot be resisted under the guise of material alteration under Section 87 of the Act. He therefore, re-emphasizes that the parties having voluntarily agreed for re-validation of the disputed cheque though the validity period had expired, would have no bearing and would give fresh cause for the original complainant to present his case in terms of the provisions of the Act. 6.7 By making the aforesaid submissions, the learned advocate has urged to grant leave to appeal and admit the criminal appeals. He further, under the instructions, once again, prayed for, at least to consider his submissions insofar as the remaining outstanding amount due from the respondent-accused, is concerned. 7. Having heard the learned advocate for the applicant- original complainant, noticing the issue involved, this Court vide order dated 19.07.2023, kept the matters for orders, considering the documents, which have been placed on record in the form of paper book and the decisions relied upon as well as the submissions made by the learned advocate for the applicant, as against the findings and the reasons recorded by the learned Magistrate. The only question, which falls for consideration for this Court, is whether, the learned Magistrate committed any error, which calls for any interference of this Court by granting special leave to appeal. 8. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, the learned Magistrate at the outset, after noticing the scheme of the Act and having prima facie, opined about the compliance of the relevant provisions of the Act for maintaining a complaint under Section 138 of the Act. At the outset, the learned Magistrate, recorded the undisputed facts, which are reproduced hereunder: (I) The first date which was endorsed on the disputed cheque is 10.12.2009; (II) The disputed cheque is singed across by the drawer- Arvindbhai Hajabhai Parmar as the proprietor of Shivkrupa Transport; (III) The disputed cheque was presented before the concerned bank, which was reported to have been dishonored on 10.12.2009; (IV) Upon dishonour of cheque for the first time, no legal notice or any legal proceedings have been initiated by the complainant within a period of six months; (V) According to the complainant, the accused had revalidated the disputed cheque by endorsing the date 25.11.2010, however, no seal of the Shivkrupa Transport is endorsed on the disputed cheque; (VI) As per the admission of the complainant, once the cheque is deposited with the bank, even upon mutual understanding of the parties, the validity period cannot be extended beyond period of six months: (VII) The demand notice raised by the advocate on behalf of the complainant, has not been produced on record. (VIII) In all ten complaints have been lodged between the parties in respect of ten different cheques for an amount of Rs.25,53,353/- ; (IX) As per the admission of the complainant-Pareshbhai Jasubhai Thakkar as against the outstanding amount of Rs.25,53,353/-, an amount of Rs.5,04,000/- has been repaid and though such amount has been repaid, the same has not been adjusted. 9. The learned Magistrate after noticing the undisputed facts, considering the defence raised by the respondent-accused in light of the evidence emerged on record, has mainly considered the issue on the aspect of the validity of the cheque, part payment and demand notice. The aforesaid issues have been closely examined in light of the evidence on record and have been answered against the complainant, thereby holding the complaint being not maintainable and recorded the order of acquittal of the respondent-accused. 10. The aforesaid issues have been closely examined in light of the evidence on record and have been answered against the complainant, thereby holding the complaint being not maintainable and recorded the order of acquittal of the respondent-accused. 10. Upon appreciation of the evidence, I may examine the grounds raised by the applicant in the present application: 10.1 Part payment:- The issue of part payment is no more res integra, in view of the settled position as ruled out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel (supra). In the aforesaid decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if a debt has been paid before the cheque is encashed and the cheque has still being presented for full amount and dishonor, the drawer of the cheque cannot be held liable for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. 10.2 The Court has strongly placed reliance upon Section 56 of the Act. Section 56 of the Act pertains to endorsement for part of some due, whereby provides that where an amount has been partly paid in order to make a negotiable instrument valid for the purpose of negotiation , the effect to the aforesaid extent has to be endorsed on the instrument, which can then be negotiated for the balance amount. Thus, the Court has rule out that appropriate course of action in such case is to endorse the cheque with the amount of part payment made and then, the cheque can be presented for realization of the remaining amount. In absence of any endorsement about part payment of the cheque, if gets dishonor then no offence under Section 138 of the Act, will be attracted. 10.3 In light of the aforesaid legal position, if the relevant documents are examined, more particularly, the extract of ledger account produced at Exh.39, it is evident that all the disputed cheques were actually handed over to the original complainant on 08.12.2009. The relevant entries in the ledger account acknowledges the aforesaid fact of acceptance of the disputed cheques by the original complainant. The said cheques have been presented for the first time between the period from 08.12.2009 to 10.12.2009. The relevant entries in the ledger account acknowledges the aforesaid fact of acceptance of the disputed cheques by the original complainant. The said cheques have been presented for the first time between the period from 08.12.2009 to 10.12.2009. On 10.12.2009, entries of the receipt of an amount of Rs.2,79,000/- is reflected and the balance amount upon acceptance of such part payment of the outstanding amount is Rs.22,05,353/-, whereas the closing balance amount at the end of the period from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010 indicated is Rs.22,76,353/-. On further perusal of the aforesaid document, it transpires that no fresh entries with regard to discounting of cheques are entered thereafter. It further transpires that the cheques are re-presented by the complainant on 30.11.2010 on the ground that the cheques were re-validated by the respondent-accused. Even assuming for a while that the cheques were re-validated as contended by the complainant, the fact remains that the outstanding dues reflected as carry forward for the next financial year i.e. 2010-2011 for the period starting from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011 is shown as Rs.22,76,353/-. As against that the disputed amount of the ten cheques is worth Rs.25,53,353/-. It is further evident from the entries appearing in the ledger account at Exh.39 that on the presentation of all the cheques for the second time i.e. on 30.11.2010, the complainant firm had continued its claim for realization of an amount of Rs.25,53,353/- as against the balance outstanding amount dues of Rs.22,76,353/- reflected in the ledger account. Thus, the cheques, were presented for the full payment of the amount without considering the part payment of an amount of Rs.2,79,000/- received on 10.12.2009, which is otherwise given effect in the ledger account maintained by the complainant firm. 10.4 In other words, the part payment of the amount though received prior to presentation of the cheque on 30.11.2010, the original complainant firm without making appropriate endorsement on the cheques, has proceeded to claim for realization of the full amount of Rs. 25,53,353/-The complainant firm has clearly, therefore, failed to comply with the mandatory direction issued in terms of Section 87 of the Act, which makes the instrument void in absence of the requisite endorsement. 11. 25,53,353/-The complainant firm has clearly, therefore, failed to comply with the mandatory direction issued in terms of Section 87 of the Act, which makes the instrument void in absence of the requisite endorsement. 11. So far as the submission of the learned advocate for the applicant to consider independently each case for rest of the transactions is concerned, the same cannot be entertained looking to the very nature of transaction as evident from the ledger account maintained by the original complainant firm. It would be difficult to segregate the transaction and to independently examine each of the case. In fact, it was for the complainant to come with a clear stand before the trial court as regards the adjustment of such part payment of the amount against the particular cheque amount. In absence of such clarity no fault can be found with the approach of trial court. In my opinion, the learned Magistrate has rightly invoked Section 56 of the Act in the peculiar facts of the present case. 12. As regards the reliance placed by learned advocate for the applicant in the case of Ashishbhai Durlabhbhai Mulani (supra) is concerned, the Court was called upon to examine the issue as to whether issue in case where the part payment of amount due under the cheque whether before or after the date of receipt of notice of demand under Section 138 of the Act would absolve the accused of his culpability. It was the case where the accused had contended that he had paid an amount of Rs. 2,70,170/- after the cheque was presented before the bank, whereas in the present case as noted earlier, the part payment of amount of Rs.2,79,000/- was received on 10.12.2009 i.e. much prior even the presentation of the cheque for the second time on 30.11.2010. In such circumstances, the aforesaid decision would have no applicability in the facts of the present case. 13. Re-validation of the cheque account :- The second issue, which has been taken into consideration by the trial court is on the aspect of re-validity of the cheque. The learned advocate for the applicant-original complainant has made his submissions by relying upon the principles laid down in the case of Veera Exports (supra), has contended that there cannot be any second opinion with regard to the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The learned advocate for the applicant-original complainant has made his submissions by relying upon the principles laid down in the case of Veera Exports (supra), has contended that there cannot be any second opinion with regard to the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. However, the Court, after noticing the provision of Section 87 of the Act, while examining the judgment of the High Court passed in quashing petition under Section 482 of the Code, held that the defence that the alteration in the date was not made voluntarily, was a question of fact, which cannot constitute a ground for quashing the complaint. The Court further found the reasoning of the High Court fallacious on the aspect of validity period of cheque being fixed for six months. The cheques could not be re-validated by altering the dates so as to give fresh life to the cheques for another six months. The Court found that in absence of any evidence, the High Court committed error by holding that the respondent was not a willing parties to the alteration of the date and the cheques were erroneously treated void. 13.1 In other words, the Court did held that if the drawer of the cheque himself alter the cheques for validating or revaliditing the same instrument, he cannot take advantatge of it later by saying that the cheque had became void as there is material alteration and such alteration cannot be used as ground to resist the right of payee. Applying the aforesaid principle in the facts of the present case, though, initially it was the case of the complainant that the respondent- accused had re-validated the cheque by endorsing his signature on the disputed cheques, however, in cross-examination, the complainant has admitted the fact that the respondent-accused had not endorsed the correction in the date of the disputed cheque. In my opinion, the change of date is a material alteration which affects the interest of the respondent. 13.2 Moreover with the alteration of the date, the validity period of the cheque, which at the relevant point of time, was for the period of six months, would get extended for further period of six months. Specific defence was raised by the respondent- accused, denying the endorsement of the date of issuance of cheque. 13.2 Moreover with the alteration of the date, the validity period of the cheque, which at the relevant point of time, was for the period of six months, would get extended for further period of six months. Specific defence was raised by the respondent- accused, denying the endorsement of the date of issuance of cheque. The learned Magistrate has noticed that no seal of the respondent proprietorship concerned, has been reflected on the disputed cheque. Learned advocate for the applicant-original complainant has been unable to dislodge the aforesaid fact. 13.3 In such circumstances, the only conclusion which can be arrived at on the basis of such material, is that the respondent was not willing or a consenting party to such material alteration. Even otherwise, it is a settled principle of law that one who alleges something must prove the same, and therefore, the onus was on the accused to prove that he did not endorse on the correction of the date. Having re-appreciated the evidence of the complainant in light of the disputed cheques produced on record with the admission of the complainant in the cross-examination, the accused has been able to bring on record the contradictions to the case of the complainant with regard to the endorsement of correction of date on the disputed cheque. 14. Having noticed the aforesaid circumstances and in light of the provisions of Section 87 of the Act, this Court is left out with no option but to treat the cheques as void in the eye of law. This brings me to the conditions precedence to be fulfilled in order to attract the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. The proviso of the said section clearly stipulates three conditions precedent. Clause (A) of Section 138 of the Act contemplates that the cheque is required to be presented within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier. 15. For the reasons assigned, it cannot be said that when the cheque was presented on 30.11.2010, it was presented within period of six months from the date on which it was drawn i.e. on 10.12.2009 or within the period of its validity, which was six months at the relevant point of time. 16. 15. For the reasons assigned, it cannot be said that when the cheque was presented on 30.11.2010, it was presented within period of six months from the date on which it was drawn i.e. on 10.12.2009 or within the period of its validity, which was six months at the relevant point of time. 16. In absence of the aforesaid condition being fulfilled, no offence under Section 138 of the Act is attracted, in the facts of the case. For the foregoing reasons, no case is made out which calls for any interference to grant leave to appeal. Hence, these applications seeking leave to appeal are hereby refused. Consequently, criminal appeals also fail and dismissed, accordingly.