Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
The courts can also summon bank officials to produce records or documents related to transactions, dishonor of cheques, or loan accounts, which are crucial for adjudicating cases under the NI Act ["Magnum Resources Pvt. Ltd. VS India Sewing Machine Company - Delhi"] ["Deepak Jyoti VS Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank - Himachal Pradesh"]].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["Magnum Resources Pvt. Ltd. VS India Sewing Machine Company - Delhi"]- ["Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Chauhan VS Gurmeet Singh - Punjab and Haryana"]- ["Deepak Jyoti VS Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank - Himachal Pradesh"]- ["Sumitra Devi VS Kapoor Chand - Himachal Pradesh"]- ["Zaheda Inamdhar, W/o. Sherkhan M. Inamdhar VS Fatima Hassina Sayeedha - Karnataka"]
In cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, 1881, evidence plays a pivotal role. A common question arises: Whether complainant can pray court to summon Bank manager as complainant witness under N.I Act? This issue often surfaces when proving cheque presentation, signature authenticity, or account details is crucial. While courts generally allow such requests under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), it's not automatic and depends on specific conditions.
This blog explores the legal framework, judicial interpretations, and practical insights to help you understand this procedure. Note: This is general information based on case law and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Section 311 Cr.P.C. empowers courts to summon any person as a witness or recall them at any stage if their evidence is essential for a just decision. Courts have consistently upheld this broad power, emphasizing its role in discovering truth and ensuring justice. Pushkar Lal Dangi VS Narayan Lal - 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 2613
In NI Act proceedings, bank managers or officials are frequently summoned to testify on matters like cheque dishonour, transaction records, or signatures. The complainant (or prosecution) can pray for such summons, provided the evidence is relevant and necessary. TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd. VS SMS Asia Private Limited - 2022 3 Supreme 147A. C. Narayanan VS State of Maharashtra - 2013 6 Supreme 705
Key judicial stance:- Courts recognize the competence of complainants to seek bank officials' summons to establish facts like signature genuineness or cheque presentation. TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd. VS SMS Asia Private Limited - 2022 3 Supreme 147- This power is discretionary but must be exercised judiciously, focusing on whether the evidence is 'germane' to the case. Pushkar Lal Dangi VS Narayan Lal - 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 2613TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd. VS SMS Asia Private Limited - 2022 3 Supreme 147
For instance, in one ruling, the court allowed summoning a bank manager to produce a notification authorizing the filer of the suit, deeming it relevant for competency. Himachal Carpets And Rugs India VS State Bank Of India - 1990 0 Supreme(P&H) 607
Complainants typically invoke Section 311 Cr.P.C. when bank records or testimony are vital. Courts permit this if:
In a notable case, the court directed summoning bank officials to verify signatures and details, stressing its importance for fair adjudication. A. C. Narayanan VS State of Maharashtra - 2013 6 Supreme 705
While permissible, summons aren't guaranteed:- Discretionary power: Courts scrutinize applications for strong reasons. Mere desire isn't enough; necessity must be shown. TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd. VS SMS Asia Private Limited - 2022 3 Supreme 147- Accused's role: The accused cannot compel summons but can request if essential. TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd. VS SMS Asia Private Limited - 2022 3 Supreme 147- Timing matters: Applications are best at stages where evidence aids fair trials, not belatedly. Sardar Bhag Singh VS Vikram Sandhu - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 1851
Exceptions include preventing delays or filling lacunae. In one instance, an application to recall witnesses was dismissed to avoid prolonging trials under Section 138 NI Act. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Chauhan VS Gurmeet Singh - 2024 Supreme(P&H) 988
Judicial precedents reinforce flexibility in summoning witnesses for NI Act cases:
In another ruling, the trial court was directed to summon a bank record keeper with original files for defence, rejecting claims of dilatory tactics if relevant. Akanksha Tanneries VS Central Bank of India - 2024 Supreme(P&H) 776
Even under Section 91 Cr.P.C., complainants have successfully summoned bank managers to check cheque authorization, overturning rejections when witnesses were already examined. DTDC Express Ltd. , (Formerly Known As DTDC Courier and Cargo Ltd. ) VS DAT Enterprises - 2021 Supreme(Kar) 199
Courts balance rights:- Complainants prove their case primarily. Rajesh Kumar VS State of U. P. - 2018 Supreme(All) 1576- Accused get opportunities, like summoning uncles for transaction context. Manju Pancholi W/o Shri Rakesh Pancholi VS State Of Rajasthan Through P. P. , Raj. - 2020 Supreme(Raj) 435- No forcing complainants to summon specific witnesses; delays via engineered applications are rejected. Rajesh Kumar VS State of U. P. - 2018 Supreme(All) 1576
This ensures efficiency in summary trials under NI Act.
For complainants:- File clear applications under Section 311 Cr.P.C., detailing relevance (e.g., 'to prove signature authenticity').- Support with affidavits or preliminary evidence.
For courts:- Exercise discretion judiciously, prioritizing justice over technicalities.
For accused:- Request summons politely, focusing on necessity.
In conclusion, Section 311 Cr.P.C. provides a robust tool for summoning bank officials in cheque bounce matters, promoting truth-finding. However, success hinges on relevance and timing. For tailored guidance, seek professional legal counsel.
References:- TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd. VS SMS Asia Private Limited - 2022 3 Supreme 147, Pushkar Lal Dangi VS Narayan Lal - 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 2613, A. C. Narayanan VS State of Maharashtra - 2013 6 Supreme 705, Himachal Carpets And Rugs India VS State Bank Of India - 1990 0 Supreme(P&H) 607, Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Chauhan VS Gurmeet Singh - 2024 Supreme(P&H) 988, Tejraj, S/o Hiralal Chavan vs Malganga Dairy Pharm - 2026 Supreme(Bom) 29, A.V. THOMAS & CO. LTD. vs STATE OF KERALA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 57661, A.V. THOMAS & CO. LTD. vs STATE OF KERALA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 57660, Akanksha Tanneries VS Central Bank of India - 2024 Supreme(P&H) 776, Harshwardhan Singh VS Triloki Nath Satish Kumar - 2022 Supreme(J&K) 308, DTDC Express Ltd. , (Formerly Known As DTDC Courier and Cargo Ltd. ) VS DAT Enterprises - 2021 Supreme(Kar) 199, Manju Pancholi W/o Shri Rakesh Pancholi VS State Of Rajasthan Through P. P. , Raj. - 2020 Supreme(Raj) 435, Rajesh Kumar VS State of U. P. - 2018 Supreme(All) 1576
#NIAct #ChequeBounce #Section311CrPC
(iii) Concerned official(s) or Manager or both of HDFC Bank Ltd.,1284/95, Sunder Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana-141007 (Punjab) i.e., Drawer's Bank along with records. ... In order to enable the court to find out the truth and render a just decision, the salutary provisions of Section 311 are enacted whereunder any court by exercising its discretionary authority at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceeding can summon any person as witness or examine any person in ... By....
Kesar Singh's case (Supra) pertains to offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act wherein recalling of the complainant and another witness for further cross-examination had been declined by the trial Court but, this Court reversed the said order. ... Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order submitted that it was pursuant to recording of statement of DW i.e. a Manager of ICICI Bank that certain new facts came to be known to th....
Kesar Singh's case (Supra) pertains to offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act wherein recalling of the complainant and another witness for further cross-examination had been declined by the trial Court but, this Court reversed the said order. ... Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order submitted that it was pursuant to recording of statement of DW i.e. a Manager of ICICI Bank that certain new facts came to be known to th....
The learned trial court has passed an order dated 31.07.2019 and permitted the petitioner accused to examine only two witnesses i.e. Witness No.2- Manager of Bank of Maharashtra, Ravivar Peth, Pune and and witness No.4 Ashok Ugale but declined to issue defence witness summons to witnesses at Sr. ... On 31.07.2019, the learned trial court passed an order below Exh. 58 and permitted the petitioner to examine (i) Manager of the Bank of....
Section 138 of the Act. ... It is after the petitioner’s evidence was closed and the complaint was posted for examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., that the petitioner had filed Annexure-IV petition, to re-open the evidence and recall PW1 and issue summons to the Manager of his bank and also the State Tax
Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881 (in short, 'The Act'). 2.
"(a) Concerned Record Keeper from Central Bank of India, Branch New Jawahar Nagar, Jalandhar along with original loan file bearing account No.3963273824 in the name of Akanksha Tenneris and the letter dated 20.07.2020 from Akanksha Tenneris to Branch Manager." ... Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/ complainant-Bank has opposed the grant of relief claimed by the petitioner, on the ground that, the making of the application (supra) is purely a dilatory tactic on the part of the petitioner, inasmuch as....
If evidence of any witness appears to the Court to be essential to the just decision of the case, it is the power of the Court to summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person. 17.4. ... Secondly, it is more than settled that complainant has right to file complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act on dishonor of cheque and simultaneously complainant can also file suit for recovery of amount. ... Deepak Jyoti, whereby application preferred by the petitione....
on its own can summon the witness and that the Manager J&K Bank was neither in the list of of the complainant's witnesses nor the prayer was made by the respondent to summon the Bank Manager as ... Under the first part, which is permissive, the court may act in one of three ways: (a) summon interest of justice direct the Manager J&K Bank, Patel person as a #HL_STA....
list of the complainant's witnesses nor the prayer was made by the respondent to summon the Bank Manager as a witness in the present application. ... Under the first part, which is permissive, the court may act in one of three ways: (a) summon any person as a witness, (b) examine any person present in court although not summoned, and (c) recall or re-examine a witness already examined”. ... Admittedly in para No. 4....
The Trial Court has taken the cognizance and witnesses are examined before the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the said order, revision petition was filed and the Revisional Court held that revision is not maintainable. At that juncture, the learned counsel for the complainant filed an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. praying the Court to summon the Bank Manager of HDRC Bank, Bashyam Circle, Rajajinagar Branch, Bengaluru, for the limited purpose of whether the accused has given the authorization to issue the cheque.
11. Trial Court is directed to summon the uncle of complainant as defence witness.
This Court feels that the appeal needs to be decided on the following issues :- I. Whether the accused was successful in rebutting the presumption required to be drawn under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act? Whether the presumption in favour of the complainant can be drawn under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act?
Therefore the accused cannot force or direct the complainant to summon a particular witness. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 2nd May, 2018, the applicant has now come to this Court by means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate came to the conclusion that the complainant is under legal obligation to proof the allegations made in the complaint himself. On these findings both the applications were rejected by the Magistrate vide order dated 2nd May, 2018.
Act and the Magistrate is neither mandatorily obliged to call upon the complainant to remain present before the Court, nor to examine the complainant or his witness upon oath for taking the decision whether or not to issue process on the complainant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act." Act, it is open to the Magistrate to rely upon the verification in the form of affidavit filed by the complainant in support of the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
