Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CHH) 4053
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Narendra Kumar Vyas, J
Tulshi Steel Traders – Appellant
Versus
Purva Construction – Respondent
ACQA No. 425 of 2024 | ACQA No. 194 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ajay Mishra
For the Respondents: Shubham Dwivedi, Atul Kumar Kesharwani
The absence of an official bank seal or signature on a cheque return memo does not render the document invalid or the trial under Section 138 of the N.I. Act a nullity, as the Act does not prescribe a mandatory format for such memos.
Headnote:The matter involves complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, where cheques issued for the supply of construction materials were dishonored due to insufficient funds. The trial court acquitted the accused on the grounds that the cheque return memos lacked the bank's official seal and signature, thereby failing to attract the presumption of dishonor under Section 146 of the N.I. Act, despite finding that the cheques were issued towards a legal debt. The primary issue was whether the trial court was justified in dismissing the complaint solely because the return memo did not bear the seal and signature of a bank official. The court reasoned that neither Section 138 nor 146 of the N.I. Act prescribes a specific form for the return memo, and the absence of a seal does not render the document invalid or the trial a nullity, especially when the presumption under Section 139 in favor of the complainant was already established. The appeal is partly allowed and the matter is remitted back to the trial Court for deciding the case as per the direction given by this Court in forgoing paragraphs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summarization of case facts and trial court's dismissal based on return memo irregularities. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. competing arguments regarding the necessity of bank seals on return memos for legal validity. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. legal interpretation of section 146 n.i. act regarding the format and evidentiary value of bank return memos. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. remittal of case to trial court to prove dishonor through authenticated bank records/officials. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
(CAV Judgment)
1. Since common question of law and facts involved in both the cases are one and the same, therefore, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:-
a. The details of the case number of the trial Court, cheque number, amount, date of dishonor, date of returning memo, and date of issuance of notice to the accused by the complainant are given in the tabular form as under:-
| Complaint Case No. and ACQA No. | Cheque No. | Amount (in Rs.) | Date of Dishonor of Cheque | Date of Receipt of Returning Memo by the complainant | Date of issuance of notice |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Complaint Case No. 2242/2017 & ACQA No. 425/2024 | 000275 | 67,640/- | 18.05.2017 | 18.05.2017 | 07.06.2017 |
| Complaint Case No. 2243/2017 & ACQA No. 194/2024 | 000269 | 1,70,600/- | 08.05.2017 | 08.05.2017 | 07.06.2017 |
b. As per details mentioned above the complainant has filed complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short “N.I. Act, 1881”) mainly contending that the complainant is doing the business of cement, bricks and supply of construction materials. Due to relationship with the complainant, the accused has taken material for the amount of Rs. 67,470/- and 1,70,600/- and to discharge the said liability he has given the said cheques which have been dishonored due to insufficient fund as per the description mentioned in the above table. The complainant has sent a legal notice to the accused and despite the service of notice neither the amount was paid nor any reply was given, which has necessitated the complainant to file a complaint.
c. The complainant to substantiate his case has examined himself by way of an affidavit as provided under Section 145 of N.I. Act, 1881 and exhibited documents mainly the dishonored cheque (Exhibit P/1), returning Memo (Exhibit P/2), Registered Notice (Exhibit P/3), Postal Receipt (Exhibit P/4), and Bill (Exhibit P/5) in both the cases. The accused has not examined any witness, but in his evidence under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. the accused has taken plea of false implication and has stated that he has given the cheques towards security advance for supply of the material, but the complainant has not supplied the material and has misused the same. The learned trial Court vide impugned order has dismissed the complaint. The learned trial Court while dismissing the complaint has recorded its finding that neither in the forwarding memo there was seal of the bank, signature of the bank officer nor any bank officer has been examined which is violation of Section 146 of the N.I. Act, 1881 and accordingly, it has dismissed the case. The learned trial Court while dismissing the complaint has recorded its finding that the amount mentioned in the dishonored cheques has not been paid by the accused within the time prescribed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881 and has held the cheques were given towards debt or liability, but dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the learned trial Court the acquittal appeals have been preferred by the appellant.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned trial Court though it has held that the complainant has not paid the amount of the cheques and the said cheques were given towards consideration of cement and iron rod from the complainant, thus, it has recorded its finding that the cheques were given towards debt and liability, but has co
