Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. To disprove the case of the complainant and also to rebut the mandatory presumptions which could be drawn under section 139 of NI Act, the accused did not entered in the witness box, so also not produced any documentary evidence.

11. The Learned Prosecuting Counsel Complainant not advanced oral argument, so also not filed written argument inspite of giving sufficient time.

12. Per contra, the Learned Defense Counsel vehemently argued that, PW.1 has admitted in his cross examination about he is not produced counter file for having presented the cheque for encashment to his bank account. It is further argued that, Ex.P.2, the return memo neither bears the signature of the bank authority nor the seal, thus the said document shall not be considered as documentary evidence. It is further argued that, the complainant not adduced the evidence of any bank authority in support of the document at Ex.P.2. It is further contended that, the notice sent to the address of accused, did not served upon her as such, since 2017 she has not been residing with her husband due to decree of dissolution of her marriage and service of notice as per Ex.P.6 is not proved. Accordingly, the complainant has failed to establish the service of legal notice. It is contended that, as per his own case of complainant and as per Ex.P.2, the cheque returned as "Cheque is not a CTS cheque", but in the demand notice at Ex.P.4, the reason mentioned for the return of cheque as "Funds Insufficient", this fact itself very much disprove the case of the complainant. Rest of the written argument is replication of case of the complainant. Accordingly, it is sought to dismiss the complaint, thereby to acquit the accused. In support of his written argument, the Learned Defense Counsel has relied the judgments as listed above.

13. Before to appreciate the oral and documentary evidences produced by the complainant and also to consider the written argument filed the Learned Defense Counsel, it is necessary to find out whether the present complaint has been filed in consonance with the provisions of section 138 of NI Act or not?.

14. On perusal of the cheque at Ex.P.1, deposit slip at Ex.P.2, alleged return memo at Ex.P.3, demand notice at Ex.P.4 and so also the postal records at Ex.P. 5 to 6(a) it appears that, the cheque produced at Ex.P.1 bears the date as 02.03.2019. As per the deposit slip produced at Ex.P.2, the cheque at Ex.P.1 has been presented to the bank on the same day i.e., on 02.03.2019. The accused has very much disputed this document at Ex.P.2 during the argument as well as during the cross examination of PW.1. Even PW.1 himself admitted in his cross examination that, Ex.P.2 do not bears any seal. This deposit slip produced at Ex.P.2 neither bears the signature of bank authority nor the seal of the said bank. It is further observed in Ex.P.2 that, as per the procedure of the bank, once the deposit slip is submitted with the bank, the bank authorities will put the serial number, its seal and signature of the officer who passed this deposit slip and thereafter the left side portion of the copy of deposit slip would be issued to the customer who deposit this slip. But, looking to Ex.P.2, the customer copy along with copy of the bank are found in Ex.P.2 itself and it neither bears the signature of bank authority nor its seal. That apart, looking to the back side entry made on Ex.P.1 - cheque where in the Bank Manager has put his signature and mentioned the date as 27.03.2019. Which means, as per the date shown in deposit slip in Ex.P.2, the cheque at Ex.P.1 was not presented with the bank on 02.03.2019. Therefore, the deposit slip produced at Ex.P.2 seems to be created and concocted just to file the present complaint and Ex.P.2 shall not be reliable even though it has been marked. Further, the complainant has produced Ex.P.3 treating the same as bank return memo, but on careful perusal of the same, it can be clearly seen that, which bank authority this Ex.P.2 has been issued is not shown. Further, no date, month or year is found on Ex.P.3. That apart, Ex.P.3 do not reflect cheque bearing No.120822 dated 02.03.2019 for Rs.15,00,000/-. This Ex.P.3 simply found as common unsigned receipt and as per this receipt, HO No.335/2018 DT 29.06.2018 clearance of NON CTS cheque has been discontinued from December 21, 2018. It is not made known of this receipt whether it has been issued by the Canara Bank Authority or whether this receipt has been in respect of Ex.P.1 is all about silent in this receipt. Therefore, when this receipt do not discloses the cheque number, date, amount and drawer of the cheque, this Ex.P.3 would not be treated and considered as bank return memo issued by the Canara Bank authority as pleaded in the complaint. Therefore, this Ex.P.3 also cannot be reliable as evidence in support of the case of the complainant, even though it has been marked as Ex.P.3. On further scrutiny of demand notice produced at Ex.P.4, as rightly contended by the Learned Defense Counsel that, in the demand notice at Ex.P.4, the reason for dishonor of Ex.P.1 cheque has been mentioned as "Funds Insufficient" as per return memo dated 12.03.2019, but no such return memo dated 12.03.2019 is produced before the court by the complainant. That apart, in the alleged return memo produced at Ex.P.3, it is only mentioned that, the clearance of non CTS cheque has been discontinued. Even assuming for the sake of discussion that, the cheque at Ex.P.1 has been returned as NON CTS cheque, even the same reason ought to have been shown in the demand notice at Ex.P.4 instead to showing the reason for the return of cheque as "Funds Insufficient" and contrary to provisions of section 138 of NI Act. The demand notice a Ex.P.4 containing such facts and it do not full fill the requirements of section 138 of NI Act.

16. In order to attract the penal provision of section 138 of NI Act, the drawing of cheque from the account of drawer and issuance of the same for some consideration towards the payment of fully or partly the legally recoverable debt or liability of other person and that the return of the said cheque unpaid by the bank either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is in sufficient to honour the cheque or that, it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid to that account. Here, in the case on hand, as per the own pleadings of the complainant and also as per his own document at Ex.P.2, when the cheque at Ex.P.1 is Non CTS cheque, as per the circular of the RBI, all the non CTS cheques have been withdrawn from their circulation from 31 st March 2013 and it has been directed to all the banker's and its customers for the submission of non CTS cheques and getting exchange of CTS-2010 cheques. CTS means 'CHEQUE TRUNCATION SYSTEM', which means transfer of money electronically which is hassle a free process on the eve of rapid increase in respect of cheque transactions. The cheque book which do not contain a CTS-2010 cheque leaf are known as NON CTS cheque books. As per Ex.P.2 and his own pleadings of complainant, when the cheque at Ex.P.1 was returned as a NON CTS cheque, which means the cheque is invalid cheque which cannot be presented to the bank for encashment. Here, in the case on hand, as per the cross examination made to PW.1 stating that, the complainant has misused one of the old cheque of the accused and thereby has filed the present complaint against her. Though, this suggestion has been denied by PW.1, but looking to the cheque at Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.3 it appears that, the non CTS cheque of the accused which might have issued long ago, has been misused by the complainant and presented with the bank. When the non CTS cheque itself has been declared as invalid by the RBI, under such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that, the reasons shown in Ex.P.3 for the alleged return of cheque and the Ex.P.1 as unpaid do not attract the offence under section 138 of NI Act. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that, the present complaint has been filed without observing the requirements of section 138 of NI Act.