Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and order. Leave to appeal is granted. The appeal is admitted.

2. Heard on the merits of the appeal. Also perused the materials available on record.

3. The judgment and order dated 19.7.2001, passed by the 1st Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee in Complaint Case No. 45/1995, Karamvir Giri v. Ashok Kumar Singhal is under challenge in this appeal. Vide the impugned judgment, Ashok Kumar Singhal was found not guilty of the offence of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the NI Act) and thus was acquitted by the court below.

4. The factual controversy involved in this appeal is that respondent Ashok Kumar Singhal borrowed Rs. 20,000/- in cash from the appellant Karamvir Giri (complainant) on 7.10.1994 in the presence of a witness Pramod, who has also been examined by the trial court. In lieu of the said money, Ashok Kumar Singhal gave a post-dated cheque of equal amount to the appellant. The said cheque dated 15.12.1994 was drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Civil Lines, Roorkee. The said cheque, when present before the bank by the complainant Karamvir Giri, was dishonoured on account of “insufficient fund” in the account of Mr. Ashok Kumar Singhal. The bank accordingly returned the said cheque unpaid to the complainant with the endorsement “insufficient fund”. Thereafter on 28.12.1994, the complainant sent a notice to the accused asking him to pay his money. That notice was duly received by the accused on 31.12.1994. But the accused did not make any payment within 15 days or even thereafter. Thereafter the instant complaint was filed on 30.1.1995 i.e. well within the period of limitation.

5. After recording the statements under Section 200 and 202 CrPC, the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. The trial was conducted, which resulted in the acquittal of the accused respondent, as mentioned above.

6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, it comes out that the cheque which was issued by Ashok Kumar Singhal to Karamvir Giri has been duly proved as Ex. Ka-1, and the memo of return of cheque by the bank indicating the insufficiency of fund in the account of Ashok Kumar Singhal has also been duly proved as Ex. Ka-2. But the learned trial cout has discarded this material evidence just on the ground that these two documents have not sufficiently been proved. The trial court has expressed its view that no date was mentioned below the signature in the said memo of return of cheque by the bank and the signature has even not been verified by producing the concerned bank Manager or any other officer of the bank.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the relevant provisions of the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891. Sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the said Act defines the “bankers’ books” as under :

“bankers’ books” include ledgers, day-books, cash-books, account-books and all other books used in the ordinary business of a bank whether kept in the written form or as printouts of data stored in a floppy, disc, tape or any other form of electro-magnetic data storage device”

8. The attention of this Court has also been drawn towards Clause (b) of Sub-section (8) of Section 2, which defines “certified copy” as under :

“certified copy” means when the books of a bank —

consists of printouts of data stored in a floppy, disc, tape or any other electro-magnetic data storage device, a printout of such entry or a copy of such printout together with such statements certified in accordance with the provisions of section 2A”.

9. Here, the provisions contained under Section 4 of the said Act are also relevant to notice, which reads as under :

“Mode of proof of entries in bankers’ books,— Subject to the provisions of this Act, a certified copy of any entry in a banker’s books shall in all legal proceedings be received as prima facie evidence of