Sealed Bank Return Memo as Fresh Exhibit Is Not Filling a Lacuna in Cheque Case: Rajasthan High Court

Gopal Traders filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against Gulam Mohd., alleging that a cheque issued to repay a loan of Rs 3,90,000 was dishonoured for insufficient funds (para 2). On 4 March 2020 the complainant produced a bank return memo without the bank's seal or signature, marked Exhibit-2 (para 2.1). After this was questioned in cross-examination, the complainant produced a memo bearing the seal and an authorised signature, marked Exhibit-9 on 9 February 2026 (paras 2.1, 7). The magistrate rejected the accused's objection on 10 February 2026, and the Sessions Judge, Pali dismissed his revision on 24 March 2026 (paras 1, 2.2-2.3).

The question was whether a return memo already exhibited as Exhibit-2 could be exhibited again, with the bank's endorsement, as Exhibit-9 (para 6). Relying on Rajendra Prasad, P. Chhaganlal Daga and Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan, the Court held that correcting an oversight is not filling a lacuna, which means an inherent weakness in a party's case (paras 8-8.3). The first memo was a computer-generated slip; producing an authenticated one when its admissibility was questioned was "only correction of an inadvertent error" (para 8.4). Following Ram Pal Singh Bisen and S. Sangeetha, it held that marking a document as an exhibit is only for identification: it does not make the document admissible or dispense with its proof in accordance with law (paras 9-9.3). The absence of a formal application under Section 311 CrPC did not vitiate the marking, since under Willie Slaney a procedural lapse matters only if it causes substantial prejudice or a failure of justice (paras 10-10.3). As the petitioner could still cross-examine on the document, no such prejudice was shown (para 10.4).