Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. Being aggrieved by the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below, the accused has filed the present revision, asserting that the learned Courts below failed to properly appreciate the material on record. The ingredients of the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act were not satisfied. The defence evidence proved that the cheque was issued in favour of Tarsem, who had misused it. The complainant had produced a computer-generated print of the 2025:HHC:43996 return memo, which was not admissible. Therefore, it was prayed that the present revision be allowed and the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below be set-aside.

28. Consequently, this Court is of the view that in the ab- sence of perversity, it was not open to the High Court in the present case, in revisional jurisdiction, to upset the concur-
.
rent findings of the Trial Court and the Sessions Court.
29. The present revision has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
30. The complainant relied upon the memo of dishonour of (Ex.CW2/G) to prove that the cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement 'insufficient funds'. The cheque was drawn on ICICI rt Bank. The memo of dishonour was issued by Punjab National Bank. It contains an endorsement: "This is computer-generated advice, which does not require signatures.
31. 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 recourse 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 2025:HHC:43996 him, and, the accused. Nonetheless, dehors, the aforecurative recoursings, for, hence, 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 .
Certain instances of banks not signing the Cheque Return Memos stating that the Memos are computer- generated and therefore no signature is necessary 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 Settlement Systems Act, 2007, read with Payment and Settlement Systems Regulations 2008.