While dismissing an appeal in a case pertaining to the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Kerala High Court has held that when there is an alteration of the date in the cheque which is not authenticated by putting the full signature of the drawer on the place of alteration, the same operates as a material alteration and the same makes the instrument void.

The appeal before the High Court was filed by the complainant, challenging the judgment of acquittal.

The Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen held, “When there is alteration of the date in the cheque which is not authenticated by putting the full signature of the drawer on the place of alteration, the same operates as a material alteration and the same makes the instrument void. Be it so, Ext.P1 is a void cheque, as the alteration in the date was not authenticated by the drawer/accused with his full signature, and the same cannot be the basis of the prosecution.”

Advocate Unnikrishnan. V. Alapatt represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Renjith B. Marar represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

A cheque allegedly issued by the accused to the complainant in discharge of a liability got dishonoured for two reasons, which included alteration in date and the requirement of a full signature. Despite issuance of a legal notice, the accused failed to repay the amount and accordingly, the complainant preferred the complaint alleging commission of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act).

The Trial Court, on appreciation of evidence, acquitted the accused, and the Magistrate found that the cheque was a void one because of material alteration.

Reasoning

The Bench first dealt with the specific case of the accused that the cheque was issued during the year 2004, and it was materially altered by correcting the figure ‘04’ as ‘05’, and the same had no authentication by him. Referring to Section 87, the Bench explained that material alteration of a negotiable instrument by altering the date 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.

“Thus, if there is alteration in the date of the cheque, the same should be authenticated by the drawer, and if there is alteration after the sharing of the common intention of the drawer and the drawee to do so, as authenticated by the drawer by putting his full signature on the place of alteration, then it cannot be treated as a material alteration”, it stated.

The Bench held the cheque to be void as the alteration in the date was not authenticated by the drawer/accused with his full signature. “The legal position being so, the learned Magistrate is right in holding that Ext.P1 is a void cheque and no prosecution based on the void cheque is permissible”, it asserted while dismissing the appeal.

Cause Title: Mary James v. Gigi Jose (Case No.: Criminal A No. 1991 of 2007)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Unnikrishnan. V. Alapatt

Respondent: Advocate Renjith B. Marar

Click here to read/download Order


Kerala High CourtJustice A.Badharudeen

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.