IMPORTANT POINT
The failure to comply with the mandatory direction for endorsing part payment on cheques rendered the complaint not maintainable, and the alteration of the date on the cheques constituted a material alteration, making the cheques void in the eye of the law.

ORDER :

1. Since all these applications seeking special leave to appeal arise out of similar orders passed by learned Presiding Officer in different complaints filed by the present applicant-original complainant against the respondent-accused in respect of dishonour of cheque in similar set of transaction, raises common question of law, are heard together and are decided by this common order, by treating the Criminal Misc. Application No.12103 of 2023 as a lead matter and the facts are taken from it for the sake of convenience.

2. This application seeking special leave to appeal under Section 378 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1908, (for short, “the Code”) has been filed at the instance of the original complainant a partnership firm through his partner, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 15.04.2023 passed below Exh.63 by the learned Presiding Officer of Special Negotiable Instrument Act Court, Rajkot in Criminal Case No.1573 of 2011, acquitting the original accused- respondent herein for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short, “the Act”).

3. In nutshell, the case of the original complainant before the trial court was :

(I) The complainant Mr. Pareshbhai Thakkar is the partner of a partnership firm, running in the name and style of M/s. Pari Panjkajkumar Jashubhai. The said partnership firm-original complainant in past, had maintained business relations with the respondent no.2-Arvindbhai Hajabhai Parmar, who is the proprietor of M/s. Shivkrupa Transport. It is the case of the complainant that because of such acquaintance, the respondent- accused had approached the complainant firm seeking financial help for development of his business. Since the complainant firm was engaged in the business of lending of amount of discounting voucher, had agreed to such request.

(II) It is the case of the complainant that total amount of Rs.25,53,353/- was outstanding from the respondent-accused as against the aforesaid borrowed amount, the respondent-accused had issued ten different cheques of appropriate amounts. The cheque bearing no.154185 was drawn in the name of complainant-firm on 08.12.2009 for an amount of Rs.1,39,282/- from the bank of State Bank of Indore, Rajkot. It is further contended that while borrowing the amount, the respondent had also signed promissory note dated 08.12.2009. The complainant had presented such cheque for realization of the aforesaid amount on 11.12.2009, which was dishonoured.

(III) It is the case of the complainant that on having realized the part payment towards the commission, the time period for repayment of the amount, was extended as requested by the respondent-accused in order to maintain business relations. The cheque bearing no.154185 dated 11.12.2009 of an amount of Rs.1,39,282/- was re-valid by the respondent-accused on 23.11.2010. It is the case of the complainant that the date was scrolled off by entering the correct date as 23.11.2010 on the disputed cheque. The aforesaid cheque was once again presented before the bank on 30.11.2010, however, the said cheque was, once again, dishonoured as reported by the concerned bank. In such circumstances, the original complainant was constrained to issue statutory notice dated 18.12.2010, which was duly served upon the respondent-accused on 21.12.2010, in spite of specific demand being raised for repayment of the outstanding total amount of Rs.25,53,353/- within a period of 15 days.

(IV) The respondent-accused had failed to respond to such legal notice. On expiry of the period of notice and in absence of any repayment of the aforesaid outstanding amount, the complainant was constrained to approach the court of learned Presiding Officer of Special Negotiable Instrument Act Court, Rajkot, by lodging complaint under Section 138 of the Act. The said complaint was presented on 02.02.2011, which was registered as Criminal Case No.1573 of 2011 and allied cases. In order to appreciate the r