When Words Speak Louder Than Evidence: Supreme Court Overturns NI Act Conviction Based On Patent Cheque Tampering

The Supreme Court of India, in a criminal appeal decided on 17 July 2026 by a Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, has set aside a long chain of concurrent convictions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, on the ground that the cheque in question was materially altered. The case, arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 17025 of 2025, highlights the fundamental principle that a materially altered negotiable instrument cannot form the basis of criminal liability for its dishonour. The judgment serves as an important reminder that courts must scrutinise the documentary foundation of NI Act complaints with care, particularly where the alteration is visible on the face of the instrument itself.

The appellant, Rajasab, found himself entangled in protracted litigation that spanned over a decade. The dispute originated from a cheque that was allegedly dishonoured upon presentation. The complainant, Hulagappa, contended that the cheque was drawn for a sum of ₹1,10,000 and that its dishonour attracted the penal consequences of Section 138. The appellant, however, maintained from the outset that the cheque was originally made out for only ₹10,000 and that it had been subsequently tampered with. According to the appellant, the words "One Lak" had been interjected before the words "Ten Thousand only," and the numeral "1" had been inserted in the amount box, thereby inflating the apparent value of the instrument tenfold. This contention, though consistently raised, was rejected by every court below.

The trial court, by its judgment dated 11 August 2014, convicted the appellant. It accepted the complainant's version that the cheque was validly drawn for ₹1,10,000 and rejected the plea of material alteration. The appellant then approached the learned District and Sessions Judge at Koppal, but the first appellate court dismissed his appeal by judgment dated 25 March 2019, affirming the trial court's findings. Undeterred, the appellant moved the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, by way of a Criminal Revision Petition. The High Court, in its judgment dated 25 April 2025, allowed the revision only in part. While it maintained the conviction under Section 138, NI Act, it reduced the fine from ₹1,15,000 to ₹1,10,000 and directed that this amount be paid as compensation to the complainant within an extended timeframe. The appellant complied with this direction and paid the reduced amount, yet his fundamental grievance, that he was being prosecuted on the strength of a doctored document, remained unaddressed by the Karnataka High Court.

The core submission was straightforward: when the material alteration of the cheque was patent on the face of the document, no further evidence was required to establish that the instrument was tainted. It was argued that the courts below had erred in convicting the appellant and in insisting upon additional proof of alteration when the document itself spoke unequivocally. The respondent naturally supported the concurrent findings of the three courts below and contended that the conviction was sound.

The Supreme Court, upon examining the copy of the cheque placed on record, found the appellant's contention to be well-founded. The Bench observed that a bare perusal of the instrument clearly demonstrated the interjection of the words "One Lak" before "Ten Thousand only," and the insertion of the numeral "1" in the amount box. The Court held that when the alteration was so manifestly clear on the face of the cheque, the courts below ought not to have insisted on any further evidence. The material alteration was visible to the naked eye, and the conviction founded upon the dishonour of such an instrument could not be legally sustained. The Court emphasised that a materially altered cheque is not a valid instrument for the purpose of attracting liability under Section 138, and to hold otherwise would be to sanction the use of a tampered document as the basis of criminal prosecution.

In its final order, the Supreme Court set aside all the judgments under challenge, including the trial court's conviction dated 11 August 2014, the dismissal of appeal by the District and Sessions Judge dated 25 March 2019, and the partially allowing revision judgment of the Karnataka High Court dated 25 April 2025. The Court directed that the amount received by the complainant pursuant to these orders be reimbursed to the appellant within four weeks. Additionally, if any part of the deposited amount was still lying in the credit of the case before the trial court, the appellant was granted liberty to move an appropriate application for its release along with accrued interest. The appeal was allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of.

This judgment highlights a critical safeguard in NI Act jurisprudence. While the Act was enacted to ensure the credibility of negotiable instruments and to provide a speedy remedy against dishonour, it cannot be invoked to enforce an instrument that has been visibly tampered with. Courts at all levels must remain vigilant against the possibility of fabricated or altered cheques being used as instruments of harassment or extortion. The Supreme Court's intervention in this case corrects a grave miscarriage of justice and reaffirms that the integrity of the underlying document is the sine qua non of any prosecution under Section 138. For practitioners and litigants alike, the ruling is a salutary reminder that documentary evidence must always be examined with a discerning eye before guilt is pronounced.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.