Cheque Return Memo Validity Without Bank Stamp or Signature - The absence of an official stamp or signature on a cheque return memo does not invalidate the memo or the dishonour of the cheque. Courts have consistently held that such memos are informatory documents issued immediately upon dishonour and are not required to be covered under Section 4 of the Bankers Book (Evidence) Act, 1891. The primary purpose is to inform the payee about the dishonour reason, such as payment stopped or insufficient funds ["Mohd. Yunus Malik VS State of Uttar Pradesh - Allahabad"], ["Tulshi Steel Traders Propritor Pushpendra Kesharwani VS Purva Construction Propritor - Crimes"], ["GUNEET BHASIN VS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI - Delhi"], ["GIAN CHAND GARG Vs HARPAL SINGH AND ANR - Punjab and Haryana"].
Significance of Memo Content and Issuance - The content of the return memo, including official signatures and branch details, is important but its absence does not nullify the memo's validity. The issuance of such memos is an internal banking process, and irregularities can be addressed during trial. The key point is that the memo must be issued by the bank and reflect the reason for dishonour; even if signatures or stamps are missing, the memo can still be considered valid for evidentiary purposes ["Mohd. Yunus Malik VS State of Uttar Pradesh - Allahabad"], ["GIAN CHAND GARG Vs HARPAL SINGH AND ANR - Punjab and Haryana"].
Specific Cases of Dishonour Reasons - Common reasons cited include payment stopped by drawer, insufficient funds, or account closed. Courts have recognized that dishonour due to payment stopped or account frozen is valid, provided the memo is issued by the bank and correctly states the reason. Even if the memo lacks signatures, the dishonour is established if other evidence supports the bank's action ["Chlorophyl VS Cotton County Retail Limited - Punjab and Haryana"], ["Ved Parkash VS Babu Ram Sharma - Himachal Pradesh"], ["Ram Babu Shaw S/o Lt. Dhanpal Shaw VS State Of Assam - Gauhati"].
Concerns About Forged or Illegally Procured Memos - Allegations that a return memo was forged or procured illegally (e.g., account closed memos obtained unlawfully or after bank mergers) are subject to scrutiny. Courts have rejected such claims if the memo is issued by the bank and the signatures or endorsements are verified. The mere absence of signatures or stamps does not automatically imply forgery; these issues are matters for trial and evidentiary examination ["Balkour Singh VS State of Punjab - Punjab and Haryana"].
Presumption Under Section 146 of NI Act - The law presumes the correctness of dishonour memos issued by banks, including those lacking signatures or stamps, unless proven otherwise. This presumption supports the validity of the dishonour and is a crucial aspect in Section 138 cases involving cheque bounce ["Mohd. Yunus Malik VS State of Uttar Pradesh - Allahabad"], ["GIAN CHAND GARG Vs HARPAL SINGH AND ANR - Punjab and Haryana"].
Analysis and Conclusion:The absence of signatures or official stamps on a cheque return memo does not inherently invalidate the document or the dishonour of the cheque. Such memos are primarily informatory and are not required to be covered under specific evidentiary provisions. Courts have upheld their validity, provided they are issued by the bank and correctly mention the reason for dishonour. Allegations of forgery or illegal procurement can be contested during trial, but the default legal position favors the validity of these memos for establishing cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the NI Act.
