Cheque bounce case = When the cheque was not retruned with an endorsement that the date is corrected and signature is differs – non issue of reply notice – confirms the liablity of accused under Cheque =Insofar as the contention that the date of the cheque was erased and corrected from 30.12.1998 as 30.12.2002 as observed by the High Court that the cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement exceeds arrangement and the cheque was not dishonoured on the ground that there was correction in the date of the cheque or that the signature of the appellant-accused differs. That apart as held by the High Court even though, the appellant- accused received the notice on 12.02.2003, the appellant-accused neither complied with the notice nor gave any reply. The appellant has not explained as to why he has not sent reply to the notice – Exhibit No. 27 pointing out that the claim of the respondent is false and unacceptable to the appellant.

1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 28 OF 2019
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.)NO.8100 OF 2017)
RAJESH S/O MADHUKARRAOJI TOTE …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
KAMAL S/O CHATURBHUJJI MANDHANIA …RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Leave granted.

  1. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 12.07.2017 in
    Criminal Appeal No. 491 of 2008 reversing the acquittal and
    convicting the appellant-accused under Section 138 of N.I. Act and
    imposing the compensation amount of Rs. 4,90,000/- along with fine
    of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid to the respondent-complainant.
  2. The respondent-complainant runs a shop-M/s Kisan Bandhu having
    a business in the agricultural industry. The appellant-accused is
    the owner of M/s Rajesh Agro Trader and involved in agricultural
    industry. The appellant and the respondent used to transact
    business amongst themselves in cash and also in credit. The
    appellant on 30.12.2002 issued a cheque bearing No. 2282696 drawn
    on Bank of India, Kangaon Branch for an amount of Rs. 2,45,553/-/.
    On 29.01.2003, the said cheque was dishonoured with endorsement
    �exceeds arrangement�. On 05.02.2003, notice was issued to the

2
appellant-accused demanding payment of the cheque amount. The
appellant-accused in spite of receipt of notice, had not chosen to
reply.

  1. The trial court dismissed the complaint filed by the
    respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and
    acquitted the appellant-accused on the ground that respondent-
    complainant had failed to establish by cogent evidence that the
    appellant-accused had given the cheque ( Exh. 23) in order to
    discharge a legally enforceable debt. The Trial Court further held
    that since it was not proved that the disputed contents on the
    cheque, viz. erasing �1998� and correcting it as �2002�, �the
    amount in words and in figures� whether were written by the
    appellant or with his consent, the appellant could not be held to
    have committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act,
    1881.
  2. In appeal by the complainant, the High court reversed
    the judgment of acquittal and convicted the appellant u/s 138 of
    N.I. Act and thereby affirming the judgment of the Trial Court
    affirming the conviction.
  3. Since respondent has not entered appearance, Mr. S. Mahendran,
    Advocate was appointed through Supreme Court Legal Services
    Committee.
  4. We have heard Mr. Hrishikesh Chitaley, learned counsel
    appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. S. Mahendran, learned
    counsel for the respondent and also perused the impugned judgment
    and materials on record.

3

  1. Insofar as the contention that the date of the cheque was
    erased and corrected from �30.12.1998� as �30.12.2002� as observed
    by the High Court that the cheque was dishonoured with an
    endorsement �exceeds arrangement� and the cheque was not
    dishonoured on the ground that there was correction in the date of
    the cheque or that the signature of the appellant-accused differs.
    That apart as held by the High Court even though, the appellant-
    accused received the notice on 12.02.2003, the appellant-accused
    neither complied with the notice nor gave any reply. The appellant
    has not explained as to why he has not sent reply to the notice –
    Exhibit No. 27 pointing out that the claim of the respondent is
    false and unacceptable to the appellant.
  2. Considering the findings of the High Court and the
    materials on record, we do not find any ground warranting
    interference with the conviction of the appellant-accused under
    Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
  3. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the
    case, the fine amount of Rs.4,90,000/- (Rupees four lakhs ninety
    thousand) and the fine amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty
    thousand) imposed upon the appellant are reduced to Rs. 2,50,000/-
    (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand). In compliance of the interim
    order of this Court dated 10.09.2018, the appellant has already
    deposited the said amount before the Trial Court.
  4. The appeal is partly allowed by reducing the fine amount
    to Rs.2,50,000/-.
  5. The Trial Court shall disburse the amount to the

4
respondent either an application filed by the respondent or by
issuing notic e to the respondent.
����������������������…J.
[R. BANUMATHI]
NEW DELHI �����������������������.J.
8TH JANUARY, 2019 [INDIRA BANERJEE]

5
ITEM NO.11 COURT NO.8 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 8100/2017
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12-07-2017
in CRLA No. 491/2008 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At
Bombay At Nagpur)
RAJESH S/O MADHUKARRAOJI TOTE Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
KAMAL S/O CHATURBHUJJI MANDHANIA Respondent(s)
(Appln. For exemption from filing certified copy)

Date : 08-01-2019 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Hrishikesh Chitaley,Adv.
Mr. Vikay Kari Singh,Adv.
Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. S. Mahendran,Adv.

      UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                         O R D E R

Leave granted.
The appeal is partly allowed in terms of the signed
order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
(MADHU BALA) (PARVEEN KUMARI PASRICHA)
COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed order is placed on the file)