Soumen Sen, J.

The plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 5 are the trustees of the trust for Texmaco Ltd. Employees' Provident Fund. The instant suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.7,90,000/- against the defendants, Jointly and severally along with interest.

2. The claim in the suit arises out of a wrongful encashment of a forged cheque of the plaintiff Company.

3. The plaintiff claims that a Cheque bearing No. 143998 dated 21st September, 1987 is a forged cheque and the bank allowed the wrongful encashment of the said cheque without ascertaining that the signatures appearing on the said instrument are forged and the rubber stamp that appeared on the cheque was a forged rubber stamp of the plaintiff Company. The defendant failed to scrutinise the cheque of such high denomination before its encashment and failed in its duty in scrutinising and verifying the signatures and the rubber stamp appearing on the cheque with that of the Specimen Signature Card and the specimen rubber stamp of the company that was kept with the Bank. The Bank acted negligently and acted in collusion and conspiracy with some person and/or persons unknown to the plaintiffs in facilitating encashment of such forged cheque.

4. The plaintiff in short in the suit claimed recovery of the loss of money wrongfully debited from their bank account. The plaintiff averred that any two of the plaintiffs, namely, plaintiffs Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were duly authorised to sign the cheques to operate the said current account. Prior to 7th August, 1987, the defendant No. 1 duly issued a cheque book containing 100 cheques bearing Nos. 143901 to 144000 in favour of the plaintiffs for their use in relation to the said current account. On 13th October, 1987, the statement of account was received from the defendant No. 1 in relation to the said current account and on verification thereof, it transpired that a cheque bearing No. 143998 for a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- had been encashed on 21st September, 1987, against the endorsement 'Self from the said current account though no cheque bearing the said No. 143998 had been issued on 21st September, 1987 by the plaintiffs or any of them for being encashed. On 14th October, 1987, the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 took inspection of the said cheque bearing No. 143998 and on scrutiny following discrepancies were noticed:-

(a) Neither of the signatures appearing on the original cheque was the signature of any of the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2. On the said cheque, purported to have been signed by the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 each of the signatures appearing was forged.

(b) The rubber stamp appearing on the face of the said cheque at the top to the effect A/C. Payee and all other crossing cancelled and pay cash

Texmaco Ltd. Employees Provident

Trustee Trustee"

was not the rubber stamp of the plaintiffs. The said rubber stamp was also forged. Each of the signatures appearing above the words Trustee' was forged. The signatures were not of the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2.

(c) the hand-writing appearing on the body of the said cheque was not the hand-writing of any of the employees of the plaintiffs or of any body authorised by the plaintiffs to write on the body of the cheque.

(d) On the reverse side of the said cheque, the rubber stamp appearing at the top was not the rubber stamp of the plaintiffs and the rubber stamp was forged The said rubber stamp did not read Texmaco Ltd. Employees' Provident Fund' but read Texmaco Employee's Provident Fund'. The forged rubber stamp had letters of larger size than the letters of genuine rubber stamp. On the reverse side of the said cheque, neither of the signatures appearing at the top was the signature of the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 and each of this signature was also forged

(e) The initials appearing on the reverse of the said cheque were not the initials of any of the employees of the plaintiffs. The Initials were also illegible.

5. The defendant No. 1 UCO Bank has filed a written statement. The defendant No. 1