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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Since respondent has not entered appearance, Mr. S. Mahendran,
Advocate   was   appointed   through   Supreme   Court   Legal   Services
Committee.
7. 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
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. The  appeal  is  partly  allowed  by  reducing  the  fine  amount
to Rs.2,50,000/-.
12. 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)