LIVE Online Course on NDPS by Riva Pocha and Adv. Taraq Sayed. Starting from 24th May. Register Now!!
LAW Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

suryapal singh chouhan (advocate)     01 August 2011

Ni-138- computer generated memo from bank without seal/stamp

Cheque is of Punjab National Bank and my client deposit the same in his Bank of india account for incash. Cheque has been  bounce---Bank returned the cheque with memo. but memo is computer genrated without any seal ,stamp and singnature. is it admissible in evidence in case of 138-NI Act case. ?...Bank said that this is a system generated not required seal and singnature because we received it from punjab National Bank..



 75 Replies

AAK (Advocate)     01 August 2011

It is admissable in evidence. however if court rejects it to admit then you have option to summon bank officials for production of documents..

2 Like

Gaurav (Advocate)     01 August 2011

It is admissible in evidence...u also have the bounced cheque for corrobration. 

DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g (POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE )     01 August 2011

If you miss in pleadings and do not take evidence ot the bank , it will go against you.

K I P SINGH (Director)     02 August 2011

Every document annexed with the plaint has to be exhibited through the witness in the court.In this case, bank official shall have to come to the court to testify its correctness.Computer-generated slips of bank are accepted in the trial.

suryapal singh chouhan (advocate)     03 August 2011

but the memo is not stamped......

suryapal singh chouhan (advocate)     03 August 2011

I have just filed the complaint and case is fixed for prelim argument on 29/08/2011

K I P SINGH (Director)     03 August 2011

The evidence of the bank employee has to be proved viz-a-viz bank memo. Once the memo is proved then no material evidence is needed ( except the issuance of checque for consideration).

PJANARDHANA REDDY (ADVOCATE & DIRECTOR)     04 August 2011

PLEASE READ THE NI ACT SEC 146

 

[146. Bank's slip prima facie evidence of certain facts.

 

The Court shall, in respect of every proceeding under this Chapter, on production of bank's slip or memo having thereon the official mark denoting that the cheque has been dishonoured, presume the fact of dishonour of such cheque, unless and until such fact is disproved.]

 

HENCE NO STAMP - NO CASE

DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g (POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE )     04 August 2011

Yes sir I feel this is the correct position. And suryely  no further evidence to correct will be aallowed.

AAK (Advocate)     05 August 2011

that section only says "official mark denoting that the cheque has been dishonoured". If memo states that the cheque is dishounoured that is enough. No stamp/seal required. Its criminal proceedings u can mark it. The term used in the section is SHALL, hence court shall presume the fact of dishonour and admit it, unless the said fact is disproved.

DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g (POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE )     05 August 2011

Please read the provision as a whole =

 

The Court shall, in respect of every proceeding under this Chapter, on production of bank's slip or memo having thereon the official mark denoting that the cheque has been dishonoured, presume the fact of dishonour of such cheque, unless and until such fact is disproved.]

 

So if no seal of the bank it has no value in evidence.

AAK (Advocate)     05 August 2011

only because the bank has furnished the computerised memo it cannot be said that it has lost its santity. The said section in no way conveys that seal is mandatory. The only criteria is bank should mention that the cheque is dishonoured. The term "official mark" used in the section does not mean seal. It simply means that a mark/note whatsover in nature by bank officer to specify that the cheque is dishonoured. As it is criminal case, If the complainant depose that the bank given the such and such document of dishonour of cheque the court has to admit and mark it.

DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g (POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE )     05 August 2011

Not legal postion , pl read section 60 of evidence act. Any depostion has to be by the person who has done it and not hearsay that I know other has done the act.

PJANARDHANA REDDY (ADVOCATE & DIRECTOR)     05 August 2011

mr.JDSN IS CORRECT

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Start a New Discussion Unreplied Threads



Popular Discussion


view more »




Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query