In a significant ruling from the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, the tradition of summoning bank branch managers to testify in cheque bounce cases has been re-evaluated and redefined. The Court has clarified that when the core of the testimony hinges on bank records—not personal knowledge—any authorised bank official familiar with those documents is fully competent to take the stand.
This clarification came in response to a case where a trial court had refused to record the testimony of an authorised bank representative in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The lower court insisted that only the branch manager—who had been listed as a witness—could testify. Even though the manager had been present on multiple occasions, procedural delays due to the accused or their counsel meant his testimony was never recorded. When an authorised representative eventually appeared in his stead, the court balked.
But the High Court wasn’t having it.
Justice Sanjay Dhar dismantled the lower court’s rigid interpretation, pointing out that in cases built on bank-maintained records—not firsthand knowledge—there’s no legal basis to restrict testimony to a specific individual. The judge stressed that anyone officially authorised and routinely handling the relevant documentation qualifies as a valid witness.
“This wasn’t a case where the bank manager’s personal insights were critical,” the Court remarked. “It was about verifying data recorded in the ordinary course of business. Denying the authorised official’s statement amounted to a misreading of the law.”
The High Court ultimately set aside the trial court’s decision and ordered it to accept testimony from either the branch manager or any other appropriately authorised bank official.
This ruling provides a practical shift for cheque dishonour proceedings, easing procedural bottlenecks and focusing judicial attention on what really matters—the records, not the rank.