Dishonour of cheque due to unauthenticated alteration: intentional drawer alteration triggers criminal liability; factual responsibility decided at trial.

Dishonour of a cheque caused by unauthenticated alteration in the amount constitutes a material alteration and, if made by the drawer with intent to prevent payment, attracts criminal liability under the negotiable instruments regime; this follows from the principle that alterations preventing honour render the instrument void as against the party making them and may convert dishonour into an offence when preceded by a statutory demand notice which the drawer fails to comply with. If the payee effected the alteration to obtain undue benefit, liability may differ. Determination of who made the alteration and related intent is a question of fact to be adjudicated at trial; non-response to the demand notice is adverse to the drawer.

---

---

Issues: Whether dishonour of a cheque on account of unauthenticated alteration in the amount constitutes an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and whether the question as to which party made the material alteration can be determined at the interlocutory stage.

Analysis: The legal framework includes Section 138 (dishonour of cheque) and Section 87 (effect of material alteration) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in decisions such as Lakshmi Dyechem and Veera Exports. If an act or omission by the drawer is intended to prevent the cheque from being honoured (for example, by unauthenticated overwriting or by appending a mismatching signature), the resulting dishonour may fall within Section 138 subject to satisfaction of other statutory conditions including service of notice. An alteration in the amount is a material alteration under Section 87; whether the alteration was made by the drawer or by the payee (with or without the drawer's consent) is a question of fact requiring evidence at trial. Where the drawer fails to respond to the statutory demand notice, the determination of who effected the alteration becomes a matter for trial.

Conclusion: Dishonour of a cheque due to an unauthenticated material alteration can constitute an offence under Section 138 if the alteration was made by the drawer with the intention to prevent the cheque being honoured; the issue of which party made the alteration is a factual question to be decided at trial and cannot be finally determined at the interlocutory stage.

---