No I am not contradicting myself, but please note that blatant lies on the part of accused does not help, for example.
1. If the accused denies his signature, then simple thing complainant will do is to get the accused Bank person and get the same verified. So accused cannot aford to lie about his signature if they are his.
2. As per Banking Act, it is not necessary to cross the Bank staff on routine matter. Asking Bank staff on following questions will not help accused irrespective of Bank answers..
1. Does the accused have account in your Bank ? Ans: Yes.
2. Did the bank issue this cheque to accused ? Ans: Yes, Don't no, (NO mostly will not come)
3. Did the accused sign cheque in your presence ? (Irrelevant question)
4. Did the accused fill up the cheque infront of you ? (Irrelevant Question)
Following questions will help for the answer specified..
1. Is the signature on cheque is that of accused ? Ans: No.
2. Is the cheque issued by you to the accused ? Ans: No.
3. Is the handwriting on the cheque and that on the deposit slip same? Ans Yes / may be.
4. When was the Stop Payment instruction given to the Bank ? Ans Dtd..
The point is Bank can be questioned to prove certain probability aspect based on mistakes made by the complainant. Many a times I have seen, that complainant states that the cheque was received by him in the afternoon of 12th, but the cheque was presented for clearing on the 12 th itself. This can be deduced that cheque could not have been issued on 12th Afternoon. Moreover it is the tendency of the holder of the Blank cheque to fill up both the cheques and deposit slip at the same time and subsequently complainant states that the cheque was not received blank by him, in this case also cross of the Bank with relevant record will catch the complainant on the wrong footing.
I hope I have made myself clear. Whatever be the legal authorities experience, I am of the opinion that blatant lies will not help anyone in such regulatory cases.