Bank Slip Without Cheque Date, Number & Amount Not Evidence Under S.146 NI Act For Dishonour : Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that for the presumption under Section 146 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to apply, a bank's slip must mention the cheque number, date, and amount relating to the dishonoured cheque. If these essential details are missing, the memo cannot serve as prima facie evidence of dishonour.Justice A. Badharudeen made the observation while setting aside an...
The Kerala High Court has held that for the presumption under Section 146 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to apply, a bank's slip must mention the cheque number, date, and amount relating to the dishonoured cheque. If these essential details are missing, the memo cannot serve as prima facie evidence of dishonour.
Justice A. Badharudeen made the observation while setting aside an acquittal in a cheque bounce case. The complainant had filed a case under Section 138 NI Act after a cheque for ₹1,46,000 was dishonoured. The trial court acquitted the accused, pointing out that either in the intimation memo or in the dishonor memo, the number of the cheque dishonored was not disclosed.
The High Court, found that the complainant had tried to summon the Bank Manager to prove the dishonour with proper documents, but the trial court wrongly denied him the fair opportunity.
Thus, the court held that “Section 146 of the NI Act makes bank's slip as a prima facie evidence to presume the dishonor of the cheque. But, in order to apply Section 146 of the NI Act, the bank's slip should have to mention the number and date of the cheque and also the cheque amount with respect to the cheque dishonored, to enter into a finding that the cheque alleged to be dishonored was dishonored on a reading of the banker's slip.”
The judgment clarifies that mere production of a bank memo is not sufficient unless the document clearly relates to the cheque in question. In the absence of specific details in the case, the complainant must have the fair opportunity to summon the Bank Manager. Finding that the complainant was denied a fair chance to prove his case, the Court Set aside the acquittal and remanded the case to the trial court to allow the complainant to examine the Bank Manager.
Case title: Abdul Rahim v. Suku S & Anr.
Case No. CRL.A NO. 553 OF 2014
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 348
Counsel for Appellants: Adv. Sri.P.B.Sahasranaman Sri.T.S.Harikumar Sri.K.Jagadeesh
Counsel For Respondent: Sr PP - Renjith George