Cheque Bounce Case | Authenticated Bank Return Memo Can Be Produced Later To Correct Defect: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court has held that an authenticated bank return memo bearing the bank's seal and signature can be produced and exhibited later in a cheque-dishonour case to correct an inadvertent defect in an earlier return memo, and such subsequent production does not amount to filling a lacuna in the complainant's case.

Justice Sunil Beniwal further observed that merely exhibiting a document does not amount to admitting or proving it as evidence. The purpose of exhibiting a document is to mark it for identification, while its admissibility and evidentiary value have to be determined separately in accordance with law.

The Court was hearing a petition challenging the order of the trial court that allowed the complainant to re-exhibit the bank return memo which was signed and sealed by the bank, even though he had already exhibited the computer-generated copy of the document which did not have bank's sign or seal.

For context, a case of cheque dishonour was filed against the petitioner in relation to an amount of Rs. 3.90 lakhs, in which, during the course of trial the complainant produced a computer-generated bank return memo which did not bear seal or signature of the bank.

During cross-examination, question regarding the document's validity was posed to the complainant, post which the complainant produced a fresh return memo bearing the seal and signature of the bank. This was allowed as an exhibit by the trial court on the ground that the petitioner would have an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant on the memo.

It was the petitioner's case that the complainant could not have been allowed to introduce another return memo relating to the same transaction since that effectively allowed the complainant to cure a defect that had already surfaced during cross-examination.

On the contrary, it was argued by the Public Prosecutor that no prejudice was caused due to the new exhibit since the matter was at the stage of complainant's evidence, and the petitioner would have an opportunity to raise all valid objections during the cross-examination.

After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted that the present case was not where a certain document was not produced earlier, and then at a later stage was sought to be exhibited without any justification. Hence, production of subsequent document was not an attempt to fill the lacuna but to correct an inadvertent error.

Further, it was observed,

“In the present case, the document is simply exhibited, however that would not automatically deemed to be admitted. As informed, the trial is at the stage of evidence of the complainant and therefore, the petitioner would be having fullest of opportunity to cross-examine so as to test the authenticity of the document… mere fact that the subsequent bank-return memo has been marked as Exhibit-9 cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive proof of the document, its execution, or the truth of its contents.”

The Court stated that the procedural laws were meant to administer justice and merely because the document was allowed without any formal application under Section 311, CrPC, would not vitiate its marking or the trial.

The Court also took into account the fact that no substantial prejudice or failure of justice was shown to have been caused since the petitioner would have the opportunity to cross-examine with respect to the said document.

“Therefore, the question is not merely whether the prescribed procedural course was followed in its strictest form, but whether the departure complained of has resulted in such prejudice to the accused as would strike at the root of the proceeding or result in failure of justice.”

In this background, the Court dismissed the petition and upheld the decision of the trial court.

Title: Gulam Mohd. V Gopal Traders & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 398

Click Here To Read/Download Order