A cheque return memo generated by a bank, even if lacking an official seal or signature, is not per se invalid or illegal, and it does not invalidate proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as the provision does not prescribe a specific form for such memos.

Order on Board

1. Present criminal revision has been filed by the applicant under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 24.08.2023 passed by the learned 14th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 100/2023 in case of Vinod Shadija vs. Nishchal Rathore arising out of the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Complaint Case No. 3161/2019 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has acquitted the accused vide its judgment dated 15.03.2023.

2. Brief facts as reflected from the record are that the applicant filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881 (for short “Act of 1881”) before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Raipur alleging that the accused has requested the applicant to provide some financial assistance through one finance broker namely Vyanktesh Chhabariya for his business purpose, accordingly, in presence of Shri Vyanktesh Chhabariya, the complainant has given Rs. 1,00,000/- vide cheque No. 035837 dated 07.01.2015 payable at Central Bank of India, Shankar Nagar Branch, Raipur (C.G.) with a condition of payment of 12% simple annual interest. Accordingly, a promissory note was executed by the accused.

3. It is also the case of the complainant that the accused has paid interest from 07.01.2015 to 10.01.2017 and also extended the time period for payment of loan by signing renewal promissory note. It is also the case of the complainant that the accused has not paid the amount of interest from 10.01.2017 and a cheque was given by the accused on 18.03.2019 to the complainant bearing cheque No. 046427 dated 18.03.2019 for Rs. 1,00,000/- towards payment of principle amount. The same has been dishonored on 20.03.2019 on the count that the “account is closed” and the same was intimated to the complainant on 22.03.2019 vide forwarding memo which does not have official seal and signature of the bank. Thereafter, the complainant has sent a notice to the accused; instead of paying the cheque amount the accused has given evasive reply to the notice which has necessitated the complainant to file a complaint under Section 138 of Act of 1881.

4. The complainant to substantiate his case has exhibited documents Original Cheques (Ex. P/1 & P/12), Statement of bank account (Ex. P/13), Notice under Section 138 of N.I. Act (Ex. P/14), Postal Receipt (Ex. P/15) and Acknowledgment of Registered Post (Ex. P/16 & P/17).

5. The learned trial Court taking cognizance of the complaint has issued summons to the accused and thereafter, the accused entered appearance and denied the charges leveled against him and has also taken plea of false implication. The learned trial Court on the basis of evidence and material on record has recorded its finding that the accused has given the cheque towards liability. The trial Court has also recorded its finding that even after notice, the accused has not paid the amount, cheque has been submitted before the bank during its validity period and the complaint has been filed within the limitation prescribed under the Act, but since the cheque return memo does not bear signature and seal of the bank which is statutory in nature and neither it has given explanation regarding not putting signature or seal in the return memo nor has examined any witness in his support, accordingly, it has recorded its finding that cheque was dishonored on account of “account closed” has not been proved.

6. Being aggrieved with the order of acquittal, the complainant has pr