Material alterations to a negotiable instrument render it void unless consented by the parties; a court should not overturn an acquittal unless findings are unreasonable or perverse.

JUDGMENT :

N.S.Shekhawat, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.10.2007 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Panipat, whereby, the respondent was ordered to be acquitted of the notice of accusation.

2. As per the case of the prosecution, appellant No.2/complainant M/s.Suraj Trading Company and appellant No.1/complainant were doing the business of sale of whole sale supply of Ghee, Maida, Sugar and other Kiryana articles. The respondent/accused had been making purchases of Ghee, Maida etc., from the appellants and was getting the bills thereof in the name of his Firm M/s.Faristha Foods. The respondent purchased Ghee, Maida etc., from the appellants during the period from November 2001 to 4th September 2002 worth Rs.73,180/-. A sum of Rs.6750/- was outstanding for the previous purchases. Consequently, the respondent was liable to pay a sum of Rs.79,930/- to the appellant on account of purchase of various Kiryana articles and necessary bills were issued to him. Finally, the respondent/accused admittedly issued a cheque No.212876 dated 30.09.2002 for a sum of Rs.75,000/- in the name of appellant No.1. The cheque was presented by the appellant in their account No.3134 in Punjab National Bank, New Sabji Mandi, Panipat. However, the same was returned to them by their bank vide memo dated 18.10.2002 for the want of funds in the account of the respondent. The appellants issued a statutory notice dated 22.10.2002 to the respondent in the registered AD/UPC cover through their counsel, calling upon him to make the payment within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which, criminal proceedings would be initiated against him. The respondent refused to receive the notice and ultimately the appellants were constrained to file a complaint against the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act').

3. Vide order and judgment dated 03.10.2006 passed by the learned Magistrate 1st Class, Panipat, the respondent was ordered to be convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.60,000/-. However, on appeal being preferred by the respondent, he was ordered to be acquitted by the appellate Court. Challenging the said acquittal, the appellants/complaint have preferred the present appeal before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the cheque in question was issued for clearing the outstanding liability for a sum of Rs.79,930/- for a period from November 2001 to 04.09.2002, which was due from the respondent and for making the payment of the above said amount, the cheque in question for a sum of Rs.75,000/- was issued in favour of the appellants. Even the signatures on the cheque stood admitted by the respondent and he was admittedly having business transactions with the appellants. Still further, the case of the respondent was self-contradictory. On one hand, he stated that he had handed over a blank signed cheque as security to the appellants, whereas, on the other hand, he stated that the cheque was issued for the payment of Rs.5000/- and Rs.75,000/-. Still further, the learned trial Court wrongly held that there was material alterations in the cheque as figure "7" in the cheque had been inserted later on, which was written in a different ink as per the report of the handwriting expert. However, it was apparent that the words in the body of the cheque had been written without any break and were in same ink. Further, Rs.75,000/- had been written in one strike without leaving any gap. Even the signatures on the cheque w