A cheque return memo lacking the official seal and signature of the bank authority violates RBI guidelines and the Uniform Regulations and Rules for Bankers’ Clearing Houses, rendering it without evidentiary value and insufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

This appeal coming on for orders this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

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.

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 26.09.2023 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 vs. 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 vs. 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 Ex P/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.120/03.06.01/2011-12 dated 25.07.2011. 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 / 03.06.01 / 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