Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mittal Kothari, original accused in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, filed a writ petition challenging an order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur, dated 11/04/2018. The Magistrate had rejected the petitioner's objection to the marking of a memo of dishonour of cheque as Exhibit 22. The respondent, Shree Kanyaka Nagari Sahakari Bank Limited, had filed a complaint alleging dishonour of a cheque for Rs. 12,000/- issued by the petitioner. The cheque was returned dishonoured on 13/08/2015 with the reason 'Insufficient Funds'. The respondent sought to place on record a computer-generated memo of dishonour, which did not bear the official mark of the bank or the signature of any bank official. The memo contained a note stating that being a computer-generated advice, it did not require signature. The petitioner objected to its exhibition, arguing that without a seal or signature, the document could not be relied upon. The Magistrate overruled the objection and directed that the memo be marked as Exhibit 22. The petitioner challenged this order in the High Court. The High Court examined the provisions of Section 146 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which creates a presumption that the bank's memo of dishonour is genuine unless the contrary is proved. The court noted that the memo was computer-generated and bore a note that it did not require signature. The court held that the objection regarding the absence of seal or signature goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. The court further observed that the memo could be exhibited subject to proof of its contents, and the petitioner would have the opportunity to challenge its genuineness during trial. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Magistrate's order to mark the memo as Exhibit 22.
Headnote
A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Admissibility of Computer-Generated Memo - Section 146 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - The court considered whether a computer-generated memo of dishonour of cheque, which bore a note that it did not require signature, could be exhibited despite lacking bank seal or signature. The court held that Section 146 of the Act creates a presumption of genuineness for such memos, and the objection regarding lack of seal or signature goes to weight, not admissibility. The memo was allowed to be marked as Exhibit 22, subject to proof of its contents. (Paras 3-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a computer-generated memo of dishonour of cheque, which does not bear the official mark or signature of a bank official, can be exhibited as evidence in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Magistrate's order to mark the memo of dishonour as Exhibit 22. The court held that the objection regarding lack of seal or signature goes to the weight of evidence, not admissibility, and the memo could be exhibited subject to proof of its contents.
Law Points
- Admissibility of computer-generated bank memo
- Section 146 Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- presumption of genuineness
- marking of exhibits
- objection to exhibition
