Judgment Affirms That Alteration in Cheque Date Without Drawer’s Full Signature Renders Instrument Void
In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has upheld the acquittal of an accused in a cheque dishonour case, reaffirming the principle that a cheque undergoing material alteration without proper authentication is rendered void and cannot be used as the basis for prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The judgment was delivered by Justice A. Badharudeen on June 2, 2026, in the case of Mary James v. Gigi Jose.
The appeal, filed by Mary James, the complainant, challenged the trial court's decision which acquitted the accused, Gigi Jose, on the grounds of material alteration in the cheque. The cheque in question, dated September 20, 2005, for Rs. 55,000, was dishonoured due to an alteration in the date and lack of full signature authentication by the drawer, as per the dishonour memo dated October 6, 2005.
The court meticulously examined the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, specifically Section 87, which stipulates that any material alteration to a negotiable instrument without the consent of all parties involved renders it void. The alteration in the date from 2004 to 2005 was not authenticated by the drawer’s full signature, thus invalidating the cheque as per the Act.
Justice Badharudeen emphasized that the legal framework necessitates that any alteration on a cheque must be authenticated by the drawer to avoid rendering the instrument void. The court found that the trial court rightly concluded that the cheque was void due to unauthenticated material alteration, thereby dismissing the appeal.
This judgment underscores the critical importance of adhering to the statutory requirements regarding negotiable instruments, reinforcing the necessity for proper authentication to uphold the validity of such documents.
Bottom line:-
A cheque that has undergone material alteration, such as a change in the date, without proper authentication by the drawer's full signature, renders the instrument void and cannot form the basis for prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Statutory provision(s): Section 138, Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Mary James v. Gigi Jose, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc id # 2917906
