Section 138 complaint against branch manager alone failed after bank was dropped; applicability to pay order left open.

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act based on a bank-issued pay order could not be sustained against the branch manager alone after the bank had been dropped from the proceedings and that order had attained finality. With the bank no longer before the Court, the alleged issuance and dishonour of the instrument could not be effectively examined against the branch manager alone, and the surrounding transaction also raised serious doubt. The broader question whether Section 138 applies to such a pay order was expressly left open. Special leave interference was declined and the complaint remained quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be proceeded with against the branch manager alone after the bank had been dropped from the proceedings, and whether interference was warranted in the exercise of Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The complaint was founded on a pay order issued by the bank. The bank had already been dropped from the proceedings by the Magistrate's order, which had attained finality. In the absence of the bank, the person who allegedly issued and returned the instrument was not before the Court, and the questions relating to the issuance and dishonour of the pay order could not be examined effectively against the branch manager alone. The Court also found serious doubt surrounding the underlying transaction and was not persuaded that the case justified interference in special leave jurisdiction. The broader question whether Section 138 applies to such a pay order was not decided and was left open.

Conclusion: The complaint could not be sustained against the branch manager alone on the facts, and no relief was granted to the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed and the High Court's order quashing the complaint was left undisturbed.

---