Point of law: Negotiable Instruments - when a cheque is issued for a valid consideration with no dispute regarding the signature, amount and name, it cannot be said that, putting a date on the cheque by the payee who is the holder of the cheque in-due-course would amount to material alteration rendering the instrument void.

ORDER :

The present petitioner as the accused was tried by the Court of the learned XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore City (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the “Trial Court”), in C.C.No.26605/2014 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the “N.I. Act”) and was convicted for the said offence by its judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 01-07-2016. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred a Criminal Appeal in the Court of the LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the “Sessions Judge’s Court”) in Criminal Appeal No.786/2016.

The appeal was contested by the respondent who was the complainant in the Trial Court. The Sessions Judge’s Court in its order dated 01-09-2017 dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court dated 01-07-2016 in C.C.No.26605/2014.

Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused has preferred this revision petition.

2. The summary of the case of the complainant in the Trial Court was that, the accused had entered into an agreement with him to sell a landed property to an extent of 04 acres 01 gunta in Survey Nos.28 and 185 of Kudlu Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk. In that regard, both of them had entered into an agreement dated 15-10-2010. As on the date of the agreement to sell, the sale consideration of a sum of Rs. 16.00 lakhs was paid to the accused as an advance amount. Subsequently, the accused failed to comply the terms of the agreement for sale. However, on repeated demands, the accused agreed to return the advance sale consideration amount received by him, in which direction, he issued a cheque bearing No.010343 dated 24-04-2013 for a sum of Rs. 16.00 lakhs, drawn on the Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Koramangala Industrial Layout, Bangalore, in favour of the complainant and assured the complainant that the said cheque would be honoured, when presented for realisation. Accordingly, the complainant presented the said cheque through his banker for realisation, but the said cheque came to be dishonoured and unpaid with the banker’s endorsement “funds insufficient”. The complainant got issued a legal notice dated 24-05-2013 to the accused, demanding the payment of the cheque amount. Though the notice sent through Registered Post Acknowledgment Due (RPAD) was received by the accused, but he did not pay the cheque amount, which constrained the complainant to institute a case against him in the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

3. The accused appeared in the Trial Court and contested the matter through his counsel.

4. To prove his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW-1 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-5. The accused got himself examined as DW-1, but did not mark any documents in his support.

The Trial Court after recording the evidence led before it and hearing both side, by its impugned judgment dated 01-07-2016 convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 17,05,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Challenging the said judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.786/2016 before the learned Sessions Judge’s Court, which, after hearing both side, by its impugned judgment dated 01-09-2017, dismissed the appeal filed by the accused, while confirming the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the judgments of conviction and order on sentence, the accused has preferred this revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused and learned counsel for the respondent/complainant are appearing through video conference.

6. The Trial Court and Sessions Judge’s Court’s