Krishnapal vs Hari Singh - 2024 Supreme(MP) 180

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(MP) 180

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Prem Narayan Singh, J.
Krishnapal v. Hari Singh
Criminal Appeal No. 13704 of 2023 (I);
Decided on 25.4.2024*

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Gaurav Kumar Verma for appellant; Shahid Shaikh for respondents.

Headnote:
(1) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -- S. 138 -- Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 -- S. 4 -- dishonour of cheque -- cheque return memo filed without bank seal and signature of concerned authority -- violation of instructions of Uniform Regulations and Rules of Bankers -- entire trial for cheque dishonour not vitiated only on basis of infirmity in cheque return memo. 2014 (3) MPLJ 574 and 2022/DHC/00548 referred to. [Para 6
(2) Practice (Criminal) -- criminal appeal -- interference not called for unless judgment of acquittal palpably wrong or grossly unreasonable and unrealistic. 2024 Law Suit (SC) 279 followed. [Para 7
¼1½ ijØkE; fy[kr vfèkfu;e] 1881 && èkkjk 138 && cSaddkj cgh lk{; vfèkfu;e] 1891 && èkkjk 4 && pSd dk vuknj && pSd okilh Kkiu cSad dh eqæk rFkk lacafèkr çkfèkdkjh d¢ gLrk{kj d¢ fcuk Qkby fd;k x;k && cSaddkj¨a d¢ leku fofu;e¨a rFkk fu;e¨a d¢ vuqns'k¨a dk vfrØe.k && pSd okilh Kkiu esa 'kSfFkY; d¢ vkèkkj ek= ij pSd d¢ vuknj dk laiw.kZ fopkj.k nwf"kr ugÈA 2014 ¼3½ ,eih,yts 574 rFkk 2022@Mh,plh@00548 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 6
¼2½ çFkk ¼nkafMd½ && nkafMd vihy && gLr{ksi visf{kr ugÈ tc rd fd n¨"keqfä dk vkns'k lqLi"Vr% xyr ;k vR;ar v;qfä;qä vkSj vokLrfod ugÈ g¨A 2024 ykW lwV ¼,llh½ 279 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 7

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The appeal was filed under section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking leave to challenge an order of acquittal related to an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (!) .
The core issue pertains to the validity of the cheque return memo, which was filed without the bank’s seal and signature of the concerned authority. The trial court dismissed the complaint primarily on this ground (!) .
The appellant’s counsel argued that the absence of the bank’s seal and signature on the cheque return memo does not necessarily invalidate the document, citing a judgment from a high court that states that such infirmity does not render the memo illegal or invalid. They contended that the entire trial should not be vitiated solely due to this infirmity (!) .
The respondent’s counsel relied on a judgment from the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which held that endorsement memos without signatures and seals have no evidentiary value and are only mere pieces of paper. They emphasized that the trial court’s reliance on this precedent was justified (!) .
The document highlights that the cheque return memo in question lacked the seal and signature of the bank, which was a violation of guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. These guidelines mandate that such memos should be signed or initialed and contain a definite reason for refusal of payment (!) (!) (!) .
The guidelines clearly specify that dishonor or return memos should be signed or initialed by the bank, and practices of issuing unsigned or computer-generated memos are violations of these instructions (!) (!) (!) .
Due to the violation of RBI instructions, the court concluded that the cheque return memo without a seal and signature cannot be considered a valid public document and is only a mere piece of paper, thus lacking evidentiary value (!) .
The court reaffirmed that unless the judgment of acquittal is palpably wrong or grossly unreasonable, appellate courts should not interfere. The trial court’s findings were considered proper and justified (!) .
The recent Supreme Court judgment reiterated that interference is warranted only if the trial judge’s findings are either perverse or impossible, and in this case, the findings were not (!) (!) (!) .
Consequently, the application for leave to appeal against the acquittal was dismissed, and the appeal was also dismissed (!) .
The registry was directed to send a copy of the order to the concerned trial court for information (!) .

Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.

ORDER

1. Heard on I.A.No.16521/2023, an application under section 378(4) of Cr.P.C for grant of leave to appeal against the order of acquittal.

2. This appeal has been filed under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 26.9.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dewas District-Dewas in Criminal Complaint No.SCNIA/473/2017, whereby the accused has been acquitted from the offence under Sections 138 of N.I. Act, 1881.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that learned trial Court has passed the judgment of acquittal only on the fact that the the cheque return memo filed was without any bank seal and signature of the concerned authority and on that basis dismissed the complaint, whereas on that aspect learned High Court of Delhi has opined that if the cheque return memo is not bearing any official stamp of the bank, it does not render the cheque return memo as invalid or illegal. The cheque return memo is not a document which is required to be covered under section 4 of the Bankers Book (Evidence) Act, 1891. In this regard learned counsel for the applicant also relied upon judgment of the High Court of Delhi rendered in the case of Guneet Basin v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. reported as 2022/DHC/005048 and on that basis submitted that only the basis of infirmity in cheque return memo the entire trial under section 138 of N.I. Act cannot be vitiated. Hence the order of trial Court is against the law and looking to the perversity of the judgment leave be granted.

3. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent basing his arguments on judgment passed by High Court of M.P in the case of Satyendra Tiwari v. State of M.P. reported as 2014(3) MPLJ 574 contended that co-ordinate Bench of M.P. High Court has already decided the point and stated that endorsement memo without signature and seal has no evidentiary value and it can be treated only a mere piece of paper. Hence prayed for rejection of this application.

4. In view of the rival submissions, I have gone through the judgment of Guneet Bhasin (supra) certainly in this judgment Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has opined that if there is any infirmity in the cheque return memo, it does not render the trial under section 138 of N.I. Act as nullity.

5. Having gone through the record it is found that the said document ExP/2 has no seal of the said bank and signature of the authority, therefore, it is in violation of guidelines issued by Reserve Bank Of India vide its letter No. RBI/2011-12/121 DPSS.CO.CHD NO.120/3.6.01/2011-12 dated 25.7.2011. The said guidelines is required to be and is hereby reproduced hereunder:-

"RBI/2011-12/121

DPSS.CO.CHD.No. 120 / 03.06.01 / 2011-12 July 25, 2011

The Chairman and Managing Director / Chief Executive Officer

All Scheduled CommercialBanks including RRBs

/Urban Co-operative Banks / State Co-operative Banks /

District CentralCo-operative Banks

Madam / Dear Sir,

Dishonour / Return of Cheques - Need to Sign / Initial the Cheque Return Memo

Please refer to our circular DPSS. CO. CHD. No. 485 / 3.6.1 / 2010-11 dated September 1, 2010 on Dishonour / Return of Cheques - Need to Mention the 'Date of Return' in the Cheque Return Memo, wherein citing the criticality of the document in case of recourse to legal action, it has been indicated that instruments returned unpaid should have a signed / initialed objection slip on which a definite and valid reason for refusing payment must be stated, as prescribed in Rule 6 of the Uniform Regulations and Rules for Bankers’ Clearing Houses (URRBCH).

Certain instances of banks not signing the Cheque Return Memos stating that the Memos are computer generated and therefore no signature is necessary, have been brought to our notice. Such practices are violation of instructions contained in Uniform Regulations and Rules for Bankers’ Clearing Houses (URRBCH) which is issued under Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007 re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document