Back
Supreme Court Sets Aside After Finding Clear Evidence of Material Cheque Alteration Facts
The has overturned the of a man found guilty under , ruling that the lower courts failed to observe a glaring, on the disputed cheque. Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva held that when evidence of tampering is visible to the naked eye, courts should not demand further proof.
A Dispute Over the Numbers
The case began when the complainant, Hulagappa, alleged that the appellant, Rajasab, issued a cheque for ₹1,10,000 which was subsequently . Rajasab consistently maintained that the cheque was originally issued for only ₹10,000 and had been without his consent to reflect the higher amount. Despite these arguments, the and the dismissed his defense, upholding the and ordering a fine of ₹1,10,000.
The Apex Court's Inspection
Upon reaching the Supreme Court, the bench conducted a primary inspection of the evidence. A physical review of the cheque revealed that the words “One Lak” had been crudely interjected before the original text “Ten Thousand only,” and the digit “1” had been retrospectively inserted before the “10,000/-” figure in the numerical box. This inconsistency was found to be unmistakable.
Key Observations
The Justices emphasized that judicial bodies must rely on common sense and visual evidence when signs of tampering are manifest. The Court observed:
-
"When the alteration of the cheque is patently clear on the face of it, the Courts below ought not to have insisted on any further evidence in that regard."
-
"The of the cheque was manifest."
-
"We are, therefore, of the opinion that the of the appellant, Rajasab, on the ground that the aforestated cheque was , upon presentation, cannot be sustained."
Ruling and Implications
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the previous judgments delivered by the trial and high courts. The judges ordered that any money already paid by the appellant to the complainant must be reimbursed within four weeks. The ruling reinforces the necessity for judicial scrutiny in document-heavy litigation and limits the applicability of the in Section 138 cases when the validity of the instrument itself is compromised by clear, unauthorized alterations. This decision serves as a significant check against the exploitation of where the foundation of the complaint—the cheque—bears clear evidence of .
