Proof of cheque dishonour under Section 138 requires admissible bank evidence and timely statutory notice compliance.

Proof of dishonour in a Section 138 prosecution requires reliable evidence that the cheque was returned unpaid, and Section 146 applies only where the bank memo or slip bears the official mark of the bank. A memo without that mark, unsupported by bank officer testimony or other cogent evidence, including admissible electronic evidence with a Section 65B certificate, is insufficient to prove dishonour beyond reasonable doubt. If dishonour is not proved, the complainant also cannot establish that the statutory demand notice was issued within time. The document therefore emphasises that the complainant must strictly prove the foundational facts and statutory compliance in a cheque dishonour case.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complainant proved dishonour of the cheque and compliance with the statutory requirements so as to establish the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The foundational fact in a prosecution under Section 138 is proof that the cheque was returned unpaid. Section 146 creates a presumption of dishonour only when the complainant produces a bank slip or memo bearing the official mark of the bank. In the present case, the memo relied upon did not bear the official mark and was not exhibited as proof in the manner contemplated by that provision. The complainant also did not examine the bank officer or produce other cogent evidence, including electronic evidence supported by a Section 65B certificate, to establish dishonour. Mere assertions in the complaint and statutory notice were insufficient to discharge the complainant's burden, especially in a criminal prosecution where the basic facts must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Since the date of dishonour was not proved, the complainant also failed to establish that the demand notice was issued within the statutory period.

Conclusion: The dishonour of cheque and compliance with the statutory notice requirement were not proved. The acquittal was ? no, avoid non-English. The acquittal was upheld and the appeal failed.

---