The petitioner/accused, who is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, is before this Court.

2. The respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.PC for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act stating that there was a share transaction between him and the accused, and the cheque dated 20.9.2007 for a sum of Rs.4,53,419/- was issued towards full and final settlement of the account. The cheque when presented for realization was dishonoured for want of funds.

3. The accused entered appearance, and took a defence that there is material alteration in the subject cheque, and the cheque was not issued towards a legally recoverable debt.

4. The complainant examined himself as CW1, and exhibited the documents as Exs.1 to 8, and the accused examined himself as DW1 and another witness as DW2, and exhibited the documents as Exs.D1 to D3.

5. The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record held that the complainant has established that the subject cheque was issued towards a legally recoverable debt, and the said cheque having not been honoured, the accused committed the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. Thereafter, an appeal -3- NC: 2024:KHC:21043 CRL.RP No. 1541 of 2016 was preferred by the accused, and the judgment of conviction is confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, this petition.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cheque, which is alleged to have been issued to the complainant, was materially altered in the date column to bring the claim within the period of limitation. He further submits that the cheque was issued in the year 2000 by making alteration in the said column, the cheque is allegedly purported to have been issued on 20.9.2007. In support, he places reliance on the decision of the High Court of Bombay in the case of M/s.Pinak Bharat and Company -vs- Shri Anil Ramrao Naik and another in Crl.A. No.1630/2011 and connected appeal (DD 2.12.2022).

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the complainant submits that the issuance of cheque having been accepted by the accused, the presumption under Section 139 of NI Act would operate, and the cheque from the cheque book that was issued prior to 2000 as the cheque leaf mentioned the date, and that itself in the absence of any other evidence cannot be conclusive of the fact that the cheque was indeed issued in 2000. In support, he places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T Vasanthakumar -vs- Vijayakumari - (2015) 8 SCC

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

9. The printed pro forma date on the subject cheque - Ex.P1 is in printed ink as "--/--/199-". The accused has not denied -4- NC: 2024:KHC:21043 CRL.RP No. 1541 of 2016 the issuance of cheque, and also the signature on the cheque, and also admitted that the amount written on the subject cheque is in his handwriting, and so also the name of the complainant on the cheque. Having admitted, the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act would operate, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T Vasanthakumar (supra) in identical circumstances has held at para-8 as follows:

10. The Apex Court in identical circumstances in the case of T Vasanth Kumar (2015) 4 KCCR 2881 (SC) at para-10 held as follows:

11. The Appellate Court as well as the Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record have categorically come to the conclusion that the subject cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt, and has no material alteration on the cheque, and in the absence of any perversity or arbitrariness in the said finding, this Court under Section 397 of Cr.PC cannot interference with the findings recorded by the Trial and Appellate Courts. Accordingly, I pass the following: