1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 200 of 2010 [Nanakram H. Kukreja Vs. Ku. Kavita A. Kukreja & another] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. C.F. Bhagwani, Adv., for the applicant. Mr. D.B. Yengal, APP for respondent no.2. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 06th April, 2010. 1. This is an appeal against acquittal. 2. Trial Court had convicted the accused. 3. In the appeal against conviction, the conviction has been reversed. 4. Heard learned Adv. Mr. Bhagwani for the appellant. 5. The Appellate Court, inter alia based its reasonings on the fact, namely that admittedly when the cheque was issued, it was dated 29th March, 2004. 6. Admittedly, when the cheque was presented, the date was altered to 29th August, 2 2004. 7. According to the appellant, the alteration of month - “March” i.e., “3” to “August” i.e., “8” was done by the drawer himself. 8. In support of his contention, learned Adv., for the appellant relies on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Veera Exports Vs. T. Kalavathy [2002 (1) Civil LJ 810], which holds that the drawer is competent to alter the date and such alteration would not come in the way of the complainant. 9. The proposition in the present case is exactly contrary. 10. Here is a case where the accused disputes alteration to be in the nature of re- validation by the accused which alleges that this was unauthorized alteration by the complainant. 11. When the legitimacy of alteration was in dispute, it was the duty of the complainant to have proved the alteration to be authorized. 12. The Trial Court had inferred that the alteration was authorized on the ground of inference that accused did not lodge any complaint with Police etc., towards said unauthorized alteration. 3 13. The appellate Court did not concur with this, and on facts, held that it was the duty of the complainant to prove authorized alteration. 14. Findings recorded by the Appellate Court are, thus, well reasoned, and no indulgence is called for. 15. In the circumstances, appeal has no merit and is dismissed. Judge |Hedau|