Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

explained in the three-judge Bench decision of this Court, taking of cognizance by the Court was contrary to the law and the complaint was not maintainable before the expiry of the period of fifteen days from the date of its receipt by the appellant.

27. The record shows that PNB issued the memo of dishonour (Ex.CW1/G), (Ex.CW1/E), (Ex.CW1/H) and (Ex.CW1/K).

These are not signed by any person. An endorsement has been made "This is a computer generated advice - does not require signature."

28. It was laid down by this Court in Rajinder Singh Verma vs. B.K. Hanchnmani (30.04.2019 - HPHC): MANU/HP/0437/2019 that a computer-generated memo of dishonour not having the official seal is inadmissible. It was observed: -

"9. Even if, assumingly, the complainant may, upon recoursing to an appropriate remedy, be cast under the provisions of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, rather could therethrough strive to prove the afore- mentioned cheque, borne in Ex. CW1/A, carrying the authentic signatures of the accused, (a) and, thereafter it, was permissible for the complainant, to rely upon the statutory provisions, cast under the provisions of Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, qua his holding it in discharge, of, a contractual or other legal liabilities, arising inter se him, and, the accused. Nonetheless, dehors, the aforecurative recoursings, for, hence, 2025:HHC:33346 dispelling the effect of Ex. CW1/A, rather than being feigned, in the testification rendered hence by the complainant, to, hence assuredly contain the signatures of the accused, also, the mandate, of Section 146 of the .
Certain instances of banks not signing the Cheque Return Memos stating that the Memos are computer- generated and therefore no signature is necessary 2025:HHC:33346 have been brought to our notice. Such practices are a violation of instructions contained in Uniform Regulations and Rules for Bankers' Clearing Houses (URRBCH), which is issued under the Payment and .

31. Bombay High Court held in Vandana v. Abhilasha, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 2086: (2019) 2 Mah LJ 645: 2018 ACD 950:

(2018) 4 Bom CR (Cri) 774 that a computer generated document requires a certificate under Section 65(b)(4) and in the absence 2025:HHC:33346 of the certificate, the memo is not admissible. It was observed at page 649: -
.