Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

25. The disputed cheque bearing No.000038 is dated 15.03.2022. Old cheque books are being phased out with new ones w.e.f. 01.01.2021 as per official website of Concerned bank. Therefore, the burden lies on the complainant to prove that the cheque is legally valid as on the date of its presentation. The Andhra Bank got merged with Union Bank and same is widely circulated in the society. Despite of the same the complainant has presented the old invalid cheque. Even the bank manager who is examined as PW.2 in this case has deposed that the cheque is not valid.

26. In Ganta Kavitha Devi v. State of AP, 2024 SCC OnLine AP 5115, decided on 25-10-2024]...

"The Hon'ble High Court of Andra pradesh has noted that on perusal of Section 138(a) of NI Act, if any invalid cheque is presented before the Bank and the same is dishonored, it can be said that there is no liability under Section 138 of NI Act. In the instant case, the subject cheque was issued on 20-09-2021 and the same was drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad. By that date, State Bank of Hyderabad was merged with State Bank of India and the cheques of the said bank were valid till 31-03-2018 only. As per proviso (a) of Section 138, if the cheque itself is invalid, the Bank is bound to dishonor the same. As such, on presentation of the said cheque before 6 ICICI Bank, the same was returned on 22-09-2021 with an endorsement "Invalid cheque (SBH)".

27. In Archana Singh Gautam v. State of U.P., Application u/s 482 No. - 9536 of 2024, Decided on 05-06- 2024]...

"The Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad has noted that Allahabad Bank merged with Indian Bank on 01-04-2020, and a public notice had been issued indicating that cheques of Allahabad Bank would only be valid until 30-09-2021, and that any cheque from Allahabad Bank presented after this date would be considered invalid. In its analysis, the Court differentiated between reasons for dishonour due to insufficiency of funds and the presentation of an invalid cheque, observing that Section 138 explicitly requires the cheque to be valid at the time of presentation, and since the cheque in question was issued from an account in Allahabad Bank post its merger and past the validity date, it was deemed invalid... "

40. When there is serious allegation against Mr.Munesh that he accompanied the accused in the election campaign and misused the cheque of the complainant, said Mr.Munesh could have been appear before the Court in witness box on behalf of the complainant to give evidence. However, his conduct of abstaining from work to accompany PW1 to Court on every hearing date, while simultaneously refraining from giving evidence in this case, raises suspicion about the complainant's case and also corroborates support to the defense of the accused. However, the complainant has failed to prove his source of income and there is no proof for the loan transaction. Inconsistent stands of PW1 taken during evidence, with holding of his account statement and not examining the material witness i.e. Mr.Munesh before the Court makes the entire case of the complainant suspicious. Moreover, the cheque in question itself is a invalid cheque. Therefore, the complaint U/Sec.138 of NI Act is not maintainable.