AI Overview...

Understanding 'Contact Drawer Bank and Please Present Again' in Cheque Bounce Cases

In the world of financial transactions, few phrases strike fear like a bounced cheque. Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), issuing a cheque that bounces due to insufficient funds or exceeding arrangement can lead to criminal liability. But what happens when the bank returns the cheque with the endorsement kindly contact drawer/drawee bank and please present again? This ambiguous memo has become a game-changer in countless cases, often leading courts to quash proceedings at the threshold.

If you're facing a cheque bounce complaint or wondering about your rights as a drawer or payee, this post breaks down the legal implications, key judgments, and practical takeaways. Generally, this return reason signals no statutory dishonour under Section 138, protecting the accused from prosecution in most cases. Let's dive in.

What Does 'Contact Drawer Bank and Please Present Again' Mean?

This bank endorsement typically indicates a technical or procedural issue, not a clear case of insufficient funds. Unlike standard reasons like funds insufficient (memo code 6) or signature mismatch, this vague note suggests the bank requires clarification from the drawer (cheque issuer) or drawee bank before processing.

Common Scenarios Triggering This Memo:

• Signature discrepancies that need verification


• Account status issues (e.g., dormant account, but sufficient balance)


• Technical glitches or bank-to-bank communication needs


• Stop payment instructions pending confirmation


• Mismatch in account details requiring contact

Courts have repeatedly held that this does not constitute 'dishonour' under Section 138, which requires specific grounds like insufficiency of funds. As seen in multiple High Court rulings, proceedings based on such memos are often quashed under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process.

Legal Framework: Section 138 NI Act Requirements

For a Section 138 complaint to succeed, three key ingredients must be proven:
1. The cheque was presented within validity (3 months).
2. It was dishonoured specifically for insufficient funds or exceeds arrangement.
3. A statutory 15-day demand notice was served, followed by non-payment.

The cheque return memo is crucial evidence. If it reads kindly contact drawer/drawee bank and please present again, courts view it as non-compliant with the Act's strict requirements. The Supreme Court and High Courts emphasize that vague or ambiguous reasons do not trigger criminal liability.

The Bank has returned the cheque by specifically mentioning reason of ‘kindly contact drawer/drawee bank and please present again’ which is in the handwriting of the banker stating that drawer or drawee bank has to be contacted and then present the cheque. D. S. Shridhar VS P. John - 2022 Supreme(Telangana) 797

Key Court Rulings on This Endorsement

Indian courts, particularly High Courts, have consistently quashed Section 138 cases where cheques were returned with this memo. Here's a breakdown of pivotal decisions from the provided search results:

1. Quashing Proceedings: Standard Practice

• In a Zaheerabad Magistrate Court case, proceedings were quashed because the memo did not conform to Section 138 requirements. The court noted: The reasons given by the banker for returning the cheque did not conform to the requirements mentioned under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. D. S. Shridhar VS P. John - 2022 Supreme(Telangana) 797


• Similar relief in Indore: The cheque was not dishonored as per the provisions of the Act. Sachin Dubey VS Kishore Sharma - 2018 Supreme(MP) 973

2. Factual Disputes Don't Warrant Quashing at Threshold

• Not always a free pass. In Madras High Court petitions, courts refused quashing, directing trial disposal within 6 months. Factual issues must be determined at trial. R.THIRUVENGADA RAMANUJA DOSS vs M/S.SUNIL AND CO, PROPRIETOR, SUNIL KUMAR BAGMAR, REP BY ITS POWER AGENT, MAHENDRA KUMAR BAGMAR - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 19396 R.THIRUVENGADA RAMANUJA DOSS vs M/S.SUNIL AND CO, PROPRIETOR, SUNIL KUMAR BAGMAR, REP BY ITS POWER AGENT, MAHENDRA KUMAR BAGMAR - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 19397 R.THIRUVENGADA RAMANUJA DOSS vs M/S.Mahendra & Co., PROPRIETOR, Mahendra KUMAR BAGMAR - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 19398


• Rationale: Accused can raise defenses (e.g., security cheque, civil dispute) during evidence stage.

3. Presumption Under Sections 118 & 139

• Section 138 carries a rebuttable presumption of debt. However, ambiguous memos weaken the complainant's case from the start.


• In one revision, conviction was reversed as the cheque was a security instrument, not representing enforceable debt. A.Shanthi vs J.Rajendran - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 48342

4. Recent Trends (2023 Cases)

• Even in 2023, a cheque returned twice with this memo led to no quashing at summoning stage, but courts stressed evidence testing. Debt alleged under Section 138 must be proven unless countered. Sakshi Yadav vs State of U.P. - 2025 Supreme(All) 3253

| Return Reason | Section 138 Maintainable? | Typical Court Action |
|-------------------|------------------------------|--------------------------|
| Funds Insufficient | Yes | Proceeds to trial |
| Contact Drawer/Present Again | Generally No | Quash under 482 CrPC |
| Signature Mismatch | No | Quashed |
| Account Closed | Case-specific | Trial if notice served |

Implications for Drawers and Complainants

For the Accused (Drawer):

• File petition under Section 482 CrPC in High Court to quash FIR/complaint early.


• Produce bank memo as primary evidence.


• Argue no mens rea (guilty intent) or statutory dishonour.


• Success rate high if memo matches exactly; courts protect against process abuse.

For Complainants (Payee):

• Re-present cheque after contacting drawer/bank to get clear dishonour memo.


• Ensure demand notice specifies exact dishonour reason.


• Avoid filing if memo is ambiguous—risk dismissal with costs.

Pro Tip: Banks use standardized codes (e.g., RBI guidelines). Present again explicitly invites re-presentation, negating final dishonour.

Broader Context from Search Results

While the core issue revolves around NI Act cases, related results highlight natural justice in passport impounding (post-hearing opportunity required) Maneka Gandhi VS Union Of India - 1978 Supreme(SC) 29 and privacy rights under Article 21 (e.g., bank account privacy) JUSTICE K S PUTTASWAMY (RETD. ) VS UNION OF INDIA - 2017 Supreme(SC) 772. These underscore that financial disclosures must follow fair procedure, aligning with NI Act's strict proof standards.

In fraud cases like securities scams, courts scrutinize forged documents rigorously Indian Bank VS Satyam Fibers India Private LTD. - 1997 5 Supreme 485, reminding that NI Act complaints can't be tools for harassment.

Key Takeaways

• Contact drawer bank and please present again typically kills Section 138 cases—proceedings often quashed.


• Not absolute: Factual disputes (e.g., loan existence) go to trial.


• Prevention: Drawers, maintain balances; payees, verify before legal action.


• Timeline: High Courts direct speedy trials (3-6 months) to avoid delays.

Disclaimer

This post provides general information based on judicial trends and is not legal advice. Outcomes depend on case facts, jurisdiction, and evidence. Consult a qualified lawyer for personalized guidance. Legal situations vary, and courts exercise discretion.

Last Updated: Current Date. For latest judgments, check official sources.