9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 946 - HC - Indian LawsDishonour of Cheque - tampering with the cheque - alleged alteration of the cheque amount from Rs. 1, 90, 000/- to Rs. 4, 90, 000/- - material alteration under the Negotiable Instruments Act or not - HELD THAT - In the present case if any authority was conferred upon the accused it was to fill the amount in the words as was mentioned in the figure. He had no authority to alter the figure and thereafter to mention the altered amount in words. Section 18 would have been material had the amount in the figure and the words been written by one person but in the present case these were stated to have been written by two different persons and Section 18 will not apply to the present case. In P.K. Rajan 2016 (7) TMI 1714 - KERALA HIGH COURT the amount was mentioned in the words and the correction was carried out in the figures as per the amount mentioned in the words by the drawer of the cheque which is not the case here. Therefore no advantage can be derived from the cited judgment. In H.B. Bhagya Lakshmi 2023 (12) TMI 1432 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT it was held that handing over a blank cheque authorises a person to fill it and it does not constitute a material alteration. There can be no dispute with this proposition of law. The cheque was not blank but contained the amount in figures as per the accused. Therefore the authority to fill any amount did not vest in the holder because the drawer had expressed his intention to draw the instrument for a specific amount and the holder did not have the authority to enlarge that amount by making the alterations. Thus both these judgments will not help the complainant. Conclusion - The learned Trial Court erred in denying this right to the accused. Hence the learned Trial Court failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it under the law and such an order is liable to be interfered with even in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the Court. The order dated 28.02.2022 is set aside. The application filed by the applicant/accused is allowed. The cheque is ordered to be sent to the Forensic Expert to examine whether there is any alteration in the amount in the figure of Rs.4, 90, 000/- on deposit of expenses by the accused/applicant - Petition allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issues considered in this judgment include:
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Forensic Examination of the Cheque The legal framework involves Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, which allows for expert opinion to be sought in cases where the court deems it necessary. The accused argued that the cheque was materially altered, and forensic examination was essential to establish this claim. The trial court dismissed the application, reasoning that the amount in words would prevail over the figures as per Section 18 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the accused had admitted to signing the cheque. The court's interpretation was that the trial court erred in not considering the accused's right to a fair trial, which includes the right to present evidence. The accused's application was not frivolous, as it raised a legitimate question of material alteration, which required forensic examination. 2. Material Alteration of the Cheque The relevant legal framework includes Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which states that any material alteration of a negotiable instrument renders it void unless consented to by the parties involved. The accused claimed that the cheque amount was altered from Rs. 1,90,000/- to Rs. 4,90,000/-, a change visible to the naked eye, constituting a material alteration. The court considered precedents such as Kunjamma Cheriyan v. Soloman, where it was held that alteration in the figure of a cheque constitutes a material alteration. The court noted that the burden to prove that the alteration was made by the signatory lies with the holder of the instrument, as established in Narayan Prasad Rai v. Ghanshyamlal. In this case, the alteration in figures without corresponding consent or authority from the accused was deemed a material alteration, impacting the cheque's validity. 3. Right to a Fair Trial The accused's right to a fair trial is grounded in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, encompassing the right to a fair trial. The court emphasized that denying the accused the opportunity to present evidence, such as forensic examination, violated this fundamental right. Precedents like G. Someshwar Rao v. Samineni Nageshwar Rao and T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidhar highlight the importance of allowing the accused to lead evidence in his defense. The court found that the trial court's refusal to send the cheque for forensic examination deprived the accused of a fair trial. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The court held that:
Core Principles Established
Final Determinations The court allowed the petition, setting aside the trial court's order and permitting the cheque to be sent to a forensic expert for examination. This decision underscores the necessity of ensuring fair trial rights and the proper application of legal principles concerning material alterations in negotiable instruments.
|
