Cheque return memo defects do not by themselves justify quashing if dishonour is otherwise prima facie established.

A cheque return memo is not invalid merely because it is a photocopy or does not bear the bank seal or certification. Under the Negotiable Instruments Act, dishonour may be presumed from the bank memo unless disproved, and defects in the memo can be tested at trial. Where issuance of the cheque and dishonour are not disputed, such objections do not by themselves justify quashing a criminal complaint or summoning order, and the material was sufficient to disclose a prima facie case for process.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal complaint and summoning order under the Negotiable Instruments Act were liable to be quashed on the ground that the cheque return memo was only a photocopy and did not bear the bank seal or certification.

Analysis: Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 requires dishonour of a cheque, notice, and non-payment within the prescribed time, while Section 146 permits the court to presume dishonour on production of the bank's memo unless the fact is disproved. The absence of a particular form, bank stamp, or seal on the return memo does not by itself invalidate the memo or render the proceedings a nullity. Any alleged defect in the memo could be examined during trial, especially where issuance of the cheque and its dishonour were not disputed. The material before the trial court disclosed sufficient prima facie grounds for issuance of process.

Conclusion: The challenge to the summoning order failed, and the petition for quashing was not maintainable on the pleaded grounds.

---