The Kerala High Court has ruled that a bank slip or dishonour memo cannot be considered valid proof under Section 146 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, unless it clearly mentions the cheque number, date, and amount. This landmark decision was made in the case of Abdul Rahim v. Suku S & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 553 of 2014.
The verdict was delivered by Justice A. Badharudeen, who stated:
“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.”
Read Also:- Kerala High Court Issues Notice in Contempt Case Over ASHA Workers’ Roadside Protest Blocking Secretariat
The case involved a cheque for ₹1,46,000 issued by the accused in favour of the complainant, Abdul Rahim. When the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds, a complaint was filed under Section 138 of the NI Act. However, the trial court acquitted the accused, citing that the dishonour memo and intimation memo did not contain the cheque number.
The High Court noted that the complainant had originally planned to call the Bank Manager as a witness to confirm the dishonour, but the trial court denied him that opportunity by dismissing his petition to summon the Bank Manager.
“The trial court denied a fair opportunity to the complainant to adduce evidence,” the High Court observed.
Justice Badharudeen emphasized that mere production of a dishonour memo is not sufficient unless the document specifically relates to the dishonoured cheque. In the absence of such crucial details, the court held that the complainant must be given a proper chance to prove the dishonour through bank officials.
Based on these observations, the Kerala High Court set aside the acquittal and remanded the case back to the trial court, directing it to allow the complainant to examine the Bank Manager and submit relevant documents.
“In order to provide an opportunity to the complainant to adduce evidence, I am inclined to set aside the verdict impugned,” the judge concluded.
The complainant, Abdul Rahim, is the proprietor of Swagath Fuels and was represented by Advocates P.B. Sahasranaman, T.S. Harikumar, and K. Jagadeesh. The prosecution was represented by Senior Public Prosecutor Renjith George.
The High Court directed that Abdul Rahim should appear before the trial court at 11:00 a.m. on 1st July 2025, and the Registry was instructed to forward the judgment to the lower court within ten days for compliance.
Case title: Abdul Rahim v. Suku S & Anr.
Case No.: CRL.A NO. 553 OF 2014
