IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 480 of 2012.

Reserved on: 04.08.2025.

Date of Decision: 11.08.2025.

Rajvir Singh ...Appellant.

Versus o Satinder Kumar ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ yes For the ApCpellant : Mr. Shivom Vashistha, Advocate, vice Mr. Hari Shyam Upadhyay, Advocate.

Forh the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 04.04.2012, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. III, District Shimla, H.P (learned Trial Court), vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short “NI Act”). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. It was asserted that the complainant and the accused were known to each other. The accused borrowed ₹40,000/- from the complainant. The accused issued a cheque of ₹40,000/- dated 15.04.2011, drawn at Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd., The Mall, Shihmla, in favour of the complainant to repay the amount. The gcomplainant presented the cheque to his bank for its realisation.

iThe complainant’s bank sent the cheque to the bank of the accused, however, the bank of the accused dishonoured the cheque with the remarks “funds insufÏcient”. The complainant served a notice upon the accused, asking him to repay the amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The notice was duly served upon the accused, but the accused failed to repay the money. Hence, the complaint was filed before the learned Trial Court to take action as per the law.

3. The learned Trial Court found sufÏcient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court, a notice of accusation was put to him for the commission of an offence punishable unde r Section 138 of the NI Act, to which he pleaded not guilty oand claimed to be tried.

4. The complainant examined himself (CW1) to prove his case.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., asserted that he had borrowed ₹20,000/- and repaid the same. He handed over a blank cheque to the complainant as security, and the complainant misused it. He examined himself (DW1) in defence.

H6. Learned Trial Court held that the plea taken by the accused that he had issued a blank cheque as a security, which was misused by the complainant, was highly probable. There was a material alteration in the cheque regarding the date. The complainant asserted that this alteration was made by the accused, but the accused denied this fact. The material alteration made the cheque void under Section 87 of the NI Act, and discharged the complainant from his legal liability.

Consequently, the complaint was dismissed and the accused was acquitted by the learned Trial Court.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellant/complainant filed the instant appeal, asserting that the learned Trial Court erred in appreciating the material placed before it. The alteration was made by the accused. The cheque was dishonoured on the grounds of “insufÏcient funds” and not on the grounds of material alteration. Learned Trial Court erred in holding that the alteration in the cheque made it void. Therefore, it was prayed thaht the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by gthe learned Trial Court be set aside.

8. I have heard Mr. Shivom Vashistha, learned vice counsel representing the appellant/complainant and Mr. Ajay Sharma, le