Bank Manager’s Personal Appearance Not Mandatory In Cheque Bounce Cases: J&K&L High Court
Trial court insisted on the branch manager's presence, rejecting an authorised bank representative’s testimony in a cheque dishonour case.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently clarified that it is not mandatory for a bank’s branch manager to appear personally before a trial court in cheque dishonour cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The Court was dealing with a situation where a trial magistrate had refused to record the testimony of an authorised representative sent by the bank, insisting instead on the personal appearance of the branch manager who had initially been listed as a witness in the complaint.
The Court held that any authorised bank official who routinely handles or maintains the relevant records can competently provide testimony in such matters.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar said, “It is not a case where the Bank Manager had to appear and depose about facts based upon his personal knowledge, but a case where the witness had to make a statement based upon records maintained by the Bank. So any duly authorized employer of the Bank concerned with the maintenance of record of the Bank, could have proved the entries existing in the account of the accused. Therefore, the approach of the learned Trial Magistrate in refusing to record the statement of the authorized representative of the bank was not accordance with law.”
Advocate Shahid Zameer represented the petitioner.
The facts of the case reveal that the branch manager had indeed appeared before the trial court on multiple occasions to give his statement. However, on each of those occasions, the matter could not proceed as the accused or their legal counsel was absent. Eventually, the bank decided to depute another authorised representative someone familiar with and responsible for maintaining the bank’s records to appear and testify. The trial court, however, declined to accept the statement of this alternate witness, maintaining that only the originally listed branch manager could be examined.
This stance was challenged by the complainant through a petition before the High Court, which found the trial court's insistence legally flawed.
The Court observed that the nature of the evidence required in such cheque bouncing cases primarily revolves around official records maintained by the bank and not around facts that require the personal knowledge of any specific official. Therefore, any duly authorised bank employee with custody and control of the relevant documents could lawfully testify to prove the entries and facts from the bank’s records.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the trial court had erred in rejecting the testimony of the authorised representative. It quashed the trial court’s order and directed that the statement of either the branch manager or any other duly authorised official conversant with the bank records be recorded.
Cause Title: Iftikhar Ashraf Trumboo v. Furqan Ahmad Rather
