NAGARAJU Vs. LALITHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned trial Judge has acquitted respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') for an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the Act'). Therefore, appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant') is before this court. I have heard Sri K.A. Chandrashekara, learned counsel for complainant.

(2.) THE learned trial Judge has found that dishonoured cheque (Ex. P.1) has been materially altered. The numericals indicating the year found in Ex. P.1 are materially altered. The complainant has contended that cheque was drawn on 31.01.2006. The material alteration pleaded by accused is visible to naked eye.

(3.) WHEN drawer has closed account, banker of drawer will not have an occasion to go through the contents of cheque. The witnesses examined for complainant, including complainant have admitted that there is material alteration in cheque and date has been overwritten. In addition to this, complainant has not produced the challan to prove that he had presented cheque on the date mentioned in the cheque. The complainant has contended that accused had filled the contents of cheque. If accused has filled the contents of cheque, it is not made clear as to how complainant had received cheque, on which, date has been materially altered.