OFFICER COMMANDING Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Officer Commanding, 173 Field Regiment, C/o 56 APO was maintaining an imprest account No. 9419 with the State Bank of India, main branch, Jammu. This account used to be operated by the Adjutant of the Unit and for the operation of this account, every cheque which was presented to the Bank for encashment, was required to be counter-signed by the Commanding Officer and Adjutant of the Unit. It appears that a cheque amounting to Rs.2,25,000/-, was presented with the State Bank of India, respondent. No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) by PV Brahmchari, GNR/Clerk. This cheque was got encashed. It is under these circumstances a suit for recovery came to be filed. It was submitted that the said cheque should not have been encashed. It was stated that for operation of the account, two specimen signatures one of the Officer Commanding of the Unit and the other of the Adjutant of the Unit were made available to the bank. It was submitted that the cheque which was got encashed bore the signatures of Lt. Col. R.K. Sharma, whose specimen signatures were not available with the bank. It was submitted that the cheque was not properly issued and it should not have been encashed by the bank. The further plea taken was that defendant No. 2 was an employee of the Unit which was being looked after by the appellant. It was stated that this defendant stole one cheque leaf from the cheque book and got the same encashed after forging the signatures of Officer Commanding namely Lt. Col. R.K. Sharma and the adjutant of the unitnamely Capt. Harminder Singh, in violation of the authority which was made available to him. It was submitted that the cheque which should not have been encashed has been encashed, and therefore, a civil wrong has been committed, and therefore, the bank is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- to the appellant. It was in these circumstances, as indicated above, a suit for recovery came to be filed. It was pleaded that the bank was negligent and careless in the discharge of duties.

(2.) The Bank in its written statement stated that the suit has not been properly filed inasmuch as the plaintiff appellant is not a legal person. It was pleaded that the suit was not properly verified in terms of Order 6 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The further technical plea taken was that the suit could be filed only after arraying, The State .Bank of India, Central Office, Bombay, as a party to the suit.

(3.) On merits, it is was stated by the Bank that a cheque was presented by an employee of the appellant namely P.V. Brahmchari; he was in uniform. It was admitted that the account was to be operated jointly by the Officer Commanding and the Adjutant of the Unit. It was pleaded that the account was, infact, to be operated jointly by Capt. Harminder Singh and Ltd. Col. R.K. Sharma. It was submitted that the cheque in question was presented on 1st April 1977 for encashment by aforesaid P.V. Brahmchari. It contained signatures of Harminder Singh and Lt. Col. R.K. Sharma. It was submitted that these signatures tallied with the specimen signatures on record. It was stated that the signatures of P.V. Brahmchari were also taken at the counter. The cheque, it was stated, was encashed in the ordinary course of business, due diligence was exercised. It was stated that it was the plaintiff appellant who was remiss and that it did not take all precautions and abide by the instructions. It was stated that had the cheque issuing authority been vigilant and informed that Bank about the missing of the cheque, then the payment could have been stopped.