KUNJAMMA CHERIYAN Vs. SOLOMAN MEENATHETHIL VEEDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/complaint initiated prosecution against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This ended in acquittal. Therefore, this appeal.

(2.) THE case put forth by the complainant was that a cheque for an amount of Rs. 11.775/ - issued by the accused in favour of the complainant in consideration of the amount taken as loan by him bounced. Statutory notice did not result in payment. Therefore, the accused committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The case of the accused was that there was some transaction between him and one Maman, the brother of the husband of the complainant and towards the amounts due to him the cheque was issued. It was a blank cheque. That cheque was being made use of by the complainant. It was not supported by consideration. Moreover, there was material alteration in the cheque. The amount written in words and the name of the payee had been written admittedly by the complainant herself. A perusal of the cheque will further reveal that there were certain corrections where the amount in words had been written. That also will amount to material alteration of the cheque. So, no offence had been made out against the accused, submits the counsel for the accused.

(3.) THE counsel for the accused submits that going by Section 18 of the N.I. Act the banker will take into account only the amount written in words for the purpose of paying cash. Necessarily, that portion was written in the blank cheque by the complainant which amounts to substantial material alteration. It is further submitted that even in the amount written in figures there is material difference in two ones' preceding the figure 775. This also reveals that there was material alteration in the figure portion as well. Deposition of P.W.2, the Bank Manager also substantiated his case. P.W.2 had stated that even though the cheque had been bounced for want of sufficient funds, the cash would not have been given to such cheque even if sufficient fund was available, because of material alteration in the cheque. There was insertion in the place of writing the amount in words as (Matter in vernacular omitted - - Ed.) (700) in between (Matter in vernacular omitted - - Ed.) (11000) and (Matter is vernacular omitted - - Ed.) (75). It had not been attested by full signature of the drawer. Therefore, it is not known which is the real denomination of the cheque. So, no case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was made out.