Voluntary corrections on a cheque do not constitute material alteration under Section 87 of the N.I Act, thus the cheque remains valid.

O R D E R

The petitioner herein is the sole accused in C.C.No.525 of 2023 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Thirukoilur. The complaint is in respect of offence under Section 138 of N.I Act. The complaint averment is that to discharge the liability, the cheque bearing No.10317363 drawn by the petitioner/accused from her account maintained at Federal Bank, Puducherry, for a sum of Rs.4,53,151/- returned with an endorsement “Alternation of instrument other than date Field. Alteration corrections are prohibited under CTS”. Since the cheque issued without adequate fund, offence under of N.I Act is made out.

2. The accused is before this Court to quash the complaint on the ground that the cheque was dishonoured for material alteration. Under Section 87 of N.I Act., cheque with material alteration becomes a void instrument. When an instrument is void, there cannot be any prosecution based on the void instrument. It is contended that the cheque as such was not issued for discharging any liability. In the course of executing railway contract work, certain work was outsourced to the complainant as Sub Contractor. A sum of Rs.8,824/- alone was due and payable to the complainant. For which, the cheque bearing No.317364 dated 23.05.2023 was issued and the same was duly honoured. Whereas, the previous cheque bearing No.317363 which was wrongly written after correction, was discarded and left without filling the name of the drawee. The complainant had misused the said cheque by filling his name and presented the same without there being any legally enforceable debt.

3. In support of the petition, the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner rely upon the following judgments.

(i). Veera Exports -vs- T.Kalavathy reported in 2001 AIR SCW 4548.

(ii). Kanaram -vs- S.Hariram reported in MANU/TN/0405/2020.

(iii). Rajat Pharmachem Ltd & others -vs- State Trading Corporation of India Ltd reported in CDJ 2009 DHC 607.

4. The Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the in the space meant for writing the value of the cheque in words, the drawer has wrongly written the number and same was corrected by the drawer of the cheque and had initialled above it. Therefore, the correction duly acknowledged by the drawer will not amount to material alternation to attract Section 87 of N.I Act. The return of the cheque stating “Alternation on instrument other than date field” will attract offence under Section 138 of N.I Act. In this case, the cheque was presented for collection on 23.05.2023 and same was returned on 25.04.2024. Statutory notice was issued on 01.06.2023 which was received by the accused on 03.06.2023. The accused failed to reply or to pay the cheque amount as demanded under the statutory notice. Though, the return memo had stated “Alternations on instrument other than date filed Alternation correction are prohibited under CTS” as reason to return the cheque without honouring, it is the case of the complainant that the accused had no sufficient fund in her account while issuing the cheque. The correction duly endorsed by the drawer will not amount to material alternation. Therefore, the complainant having made out foundational case against the accused, the claim of the petitioner that the cheque is void due to material alternation is unsustainable. Further, the Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that if any alternation in the instrument made voluntarily, it cannot be construed as material alternation.

5. The short point involved in this case is whether the alternation in the subject cheque will attract Section 87 of N.I Act, if not, whether return of cheque for that reason will not attract offence under Section 138 o