Material Alteration of Cheque Destroys Section 138 NI Act Conviction | Rajasab v. Hulagappa Supreme Court 2026
EduLaw EditorialLandmark JudgementsWhen the words "One Lak" were crudely interjected before "Ten Thousand only" on the face of a cheque, the Supreme Court asked a simple question why did three courts below ignore what was visible to the naked eye? In Rajasab v. Hulagappa, the Court dismantled a decade-old conviction and restored the liberty of a man wrongly held guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Title: Material Alteration of Cheque Destroys Section 138 Conviction: Supreme Court's Landmark Ruling in Rajasab v. Hulagappa (2026) Case Name: Rajasab v. Hulagappa Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 17025/2025) Court: Supreme Court of India Judges: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva Judgment Date: July 17, 2026 Citation: 2026 SCC OnLine SC ___ (Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 17025/2025) ABSTRACT The Supreme Court of India, in Rajasab v. Hulagappa (Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 17025/2025), delivered a significant ruling on July 17, 2026, addressing the intersection of material alteration and criminal liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 . The appellant, Rajasab, had been convicted by the trial court, the appellate court, and the High Court of Karnataka for dishonour of a cheque allegedly drawn for ₹1,10,000. The Supreme Court, upon examining the cheque placed on record, found that the instrument had been patently tampered with — the words "One Lak" were visibly inserted before "Ten Thousand only" and the numeral "1" was added before "10,000" in the amount box. Holding that the material alteration was manifest on the face of the cheque, the Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva ruled that no further evidence was required to establish the tampering, set aside all three concurrent findings of guilt, acquitted the appellant, and directed the complainant to reimburse the amount already paid. The judgment reinforces the principle under Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 , that a materially altered instrument is void and cannot sustain a criminal prosecution. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction and Significance of the Judgment Factual Background and Chronology Procedural History Across Four Courts Core Legal Issue: Was the Cheque Materially Altered? Supreme Court's Analysis and Reasoning Statutory Framework: Sections 87, 89, 138, and 139 of the NI Act Relevant Case Laws and Judicial Precedents Key Takeaways and Implications for Future Litigation 1. INTRODUCTION AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE JUDGMENT Cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 constitute one of the most voluminous categories of criminal litigation in India. The statutory presumption under Section 139 — which mandates that the court shall presume the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt — places a heavy evidential burden on the accused. However, this presumption is not irrebuttable. One of the most fundamental defences available to an accused is that the cheque in question has been materially altered by the complainant, thereby rendering it void under Section 87 of the NI Act . The Supreme Court's judgment in Rajasab v. Hulagappa addresses the critical question of what happens when the alteration is visible on the face of the instrument itself — and whether lower courts are justified in demanding expert evidence to prove something that is self-evident. This ruling is particularly significant because it overturned three concurrent findings by courts below, demonstrating that even well-established convictions cannot survive when the foundational document of prosecution is demonstrably tampered with. 2. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND CHRONOLOGY The dispute originated from a cheque dishonour complaint filed by the respondent, Hulagappa, against the appellant, Rajasab. The complainant alleged that Rajasab had issued a cheque for ₹1,10,000 (Rupees One Lakh Ten Thousand) which was subsequently dishonoured upon presentation at the bank. Rajasab's defence, maintained consistently from the trial stage to the Supreme Court, was straightforward — he had issued the cheque for only ₹10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand), and the complainant had materially altered the instrument by inserting the words "One Lak" before "Ten Thousand only" in the written amount field, and by adding the digit "1" before "10,000" in the numerical amount box. The effect of this alleged alteration was to inflate the cheque amount by ₹1,00,000. The trial court at Koppal did not accept this defence and convicted Rajasab by its judgment dated August 11, 2014, accepting the complainant's version that the cheque was genuinely drawn for ₹1,10,000. Rajasab was ordered to pay a fine of ₹1,15,000. 3. PROCEDURAL HISTORY ACROSS FOUR COURTS The case traversed an unusually long path through the judicial system over a period of twelve years. Following his conviction by the trial court on August 11