Valid cheque requirement under negotiable instruments law fails where company cheques lack mandatory joint signatures.

A cheque can attract liability only if it is a valid cheque within the meaning of the Negotiable Instruments Act and is drawn in accordance with the authorised mode of operation of the account. Where a company's account required joint signatures by two authorised signatories, an instrument signed by only one signatory did not satisfy the legal requirements of a valid cheque. On that basis, an essential ingredient of the offence was absent, so the complaints were correctly dismissed and leave to appeal was rightly refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether a cheque purportedly issued by a company but signed by only one of the joint authorised signatories could be treated as a valid cheque for the purposes of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis: Liability under section 138 arises only where the instrument presented for encashment is a cheque within the meaning of section 6 of the Act and has been validly drawn by the accused. The bank evidence showed that the company's account was to be operated jointly by two authorised signatories after the complainant ceased to be a director. The instruments in question were signed by only one signatory and did not bear the required joint signatures. On that footing, they did not satisfy the legal requirements of a valid cheque capable of being acted upon by the bank, and an essential ingredient of the offence was missing.

Conclusion: The cheques were not validly drawn cheques for the purposes of section 138, so the dismissal of the complaints and refusal to grant leave to appeal was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: For an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the instrument relied upon must be a validly drawn cheque in accordance with the authorised mode of operation of the account; if the cheque lacks the required joint signatures, the statutory offence is not made out.

---