Certified Cheque Fraud Allocation .
1. WHAT IS CERTIFIED CHEQUE?
Definition: A cheque where drawee bank writes on its face "Good for Payment" / "Certified" with stamp + signature of authorized officer. It means:
- Drawer's signature is genuine
- Drawer has sufficient funds
- Bank has earmarked / frozen those funds to pay that cheque whenever presented.
Legal Effect:
- Under UCC Sec 3-409(d) US: Certification is acceptance. Bank becomes acceptor, primarily liable. Drawer and indorsers are discharged.
- Under Indian practice: No separate section in NI Act, 1881 for certification, but recognized under RBI's Payment and Settlement Systems Act and banking custom. Treated as Banker's assurance. Once certified, bank cannot refuse payment even if drawer goes insolvent, dies, or issues stop payment. Obligation discharged as if cash paid - See UCC 3-310.
Types of fraud:
- Forged Certification Stamp: Fraudster himself puts fake "Certified" stamp on his own cheque.
- Forged Drawer Signature + Real Certification: Employee forges company's cheque, gets bank to certify fraudulently?
- Alteration after Certification: Amount altered after bank certified for Rs.10,000 to Rs.10 lakh.
- Counterfeit Certified Cheque / Banker's Cheque: Entire instrument fake.
2. FRAUD ALLOCATION RULES - WHO BEARS LOSS?
Allocation depends on which bank failed in its duty.
A. Paying Bank (Certifying Bank) Liability - ABSOLUTE
Cornerstone: Canara Bank vs Canara Sales Corporation (1987) 2 SCC 666 - AIR 1987 SC 1603
Facts: Employee of Canara Sales Corp forged 42 cheques totaling Rs.3,26,047.92. Canara Bank paid.
Supreme Court Held:
- When cheque presented for encashment contains forged signature, bank has no authority to make payment. Bank would be acting against law in debiting customer.
- Forged cheque is a mere nullity - gives no mandate at all.
- Bank cannot escape by saying customer was negligent in leaving cheque book. Customer negligence is not a defense unless bank proves adoption / estoppel / ratification - i.e., customer knew of forgery and did not report, or expressly ratified.
- Paying bank has non-delegable duty to verify drawer's signature.
Applied to Certified Cheque:
If bank certified a cheque bearing forged drawer signature, certification is void. Bank cannot debit drawer, but is still liable to holder in due course who took certified cheque in good faith because certification is bank's own engagement to pay.
Case: Bank of Bihar vs State - AIR 1967 SC 389: If signature not genuine, no mandate. But if bank has already certified, it has accepted. It must pay holder, and suffer loss itself, cannot recover from drawer.
B. Collecting Bank Protection - Sec 131 NI Act
Sec 131 NI Act, 1881 - Non-liability of banker receiving payment:
"A banker who has in good faith and without negligence received payment for a customer of a cheque crossed generally or specially to himself shall not, in case the title to the cheque proves defective, incur any liability to true owner by reason only of having received such payment."
Conditions to get protection:
- Good faith
- Without negligence
- Received for customer, crossed to itself.
If certified cheque is forged and collecting bank collected without checking, it loses protection.
Leading Case: Kerala State Co-op Marketing Federation vs SBI - Supreme Court
And Kerala High Court 2023 - Banks liable for effecting payment on forged cheques: Relied on Canara Bank principle. Court held collecting bank was negligent in opening account of fraudster and in collection. Negligence in collection = liable to true owner.
Test of Negligence: Did bank verify prima facie genuineness? Under Sec 131 Explanation II - For truncated cheques, duty to verify fraud apparent on face with due diligence.
C. Certified Cheque Specific - Forged Certification
US & Canada Lead Cases:
1. Teva Canada Ltd v TD Canada Trust, 2017 SCC 51 - Supreme Court of Canada - Most cited on certified cheque fraud allocation.
Facts: Employee in Teva Canada's finance department forged 63 cheques, made payable to himself and related companies, deposited into TD account. Company sued TD (collecting bank) for conversion.
Issue: When collecting bank receives fraudulent cheques for customer, who bears loss - employer drawer or collecting bank?
SCC Held:
- Collecting bank is liable for conversion unless it proves it acted without negligence under Bills of Exchange Act (equivalent to Sec 131).
- TD failed - account opened with minimal KYC, large cheques inconsistent with customer's profile, no inquiry.
- Allocation: Collecting bank bears loss, not drawer employer. Because collecting bank is in best position to prevent fraud by monitoring its own customer.
- Even though drawer employer was negligent in internal controls, that does not reduce bank's liability unless bank proves drawer facilitated fraud.
This is followed in India.
2. UCC Allocation for Certified Cheque:
- If forged certification stamp: Drawee bank (whose certification forged) is NOT liable because it never accepted. Loss falls on person who took fake certified cheque unless collecting bank was negligent. Under UCC 3-406 and 3-405 - if payee's negligence substantially contributed to forgery, precluded from asserting.
- If genuine certification but amount altered: Under UCC 3-407 and 3-413 - Bank as acceptor liable for original certified amount, not altered amount. Collecting bank warrants under UCC 4-208 that instrument not altered. So collecting bank bears difference.
3. Indian Case - United Bank of India vs Bank of Baroda, Madras - 9 Feb 1996:
Held under Sec 131 - If banker in good faith and without negligence received payment for customer of cheque crossed to himself, in case title proves defective bank not liable to true owner. Negligence considered not in opening account but in collection unless opening and deposit part of same scheme (account opened with cheque in question).
4. R. Ramesh vs Vijaya Bank - Karnataka HC:
Bank's own vigilance officer reports said signatures did not match specimen. Bank did not deny forgery, did not prove plaintiff had knowledge. Court referred to Canara Bank vs Canara Sales Corp - bank liable to reimburse.
3. SUMMARY ALLOCATION MATRIX
| Fraud Scenario | Drawer (Customer) | Certifying / Paying Bank | Collecting Bank | Holder in Due Course |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Forged drawer signature + Genuine certification | Not liable - no mandate. Bank cannot debit | Liable to holder, must pay certified amount. Must credit drawer back. Can sue fraudster | Protected u/s 131 if without negligence | Protected, gets paid by certifying bank |
| Genuine drawer signature + Forged certification stamp | May be liable to payee if underlying debt exists | Not liable - never accepted | Liable if failed to detect obvious forgery | Loses if took fake certification - not holder in due course of bank's obligation |
| Alteration after certification - Rs 10k to 10L | Liable only for original amount | Liable for original certified amount | Liable for excess under warranty u/s 131 negligence + UCC 4-208 breach | Can recover original from certifying bank, excess from collecting bank |
| Counterfeit Banker's / Certified Cheque | No liability | No liability - instrument not its own | Liable if collected without due diligence | Bears loss unless collecting bank negligent |
Key Doctrine for Certified Cheque:
Once bank certifies, drawer is discharged. Under Sec 42 of NI Act - Acceptance. So fraud loss cannot be pushed back to drawer after certification. Bank that certified bears primary liability.
False Certification Crime: Sec 1004 US Code - Officer who certifies cheque before amount regularly deposited, or resorts to device to evade law, fined/imprisoned 5 years. In India, IPC Sec 467/468 - forgery of valuable security.
Practical Defence for Banks:
- Signature verification system - no manual override
- Positive Pay for certified cheques
- For collecting bank - KYC, transaction monitoring, threshold for certified cheques, call back to certifying bank via phone number not on cheque.
RELATED Blog
comments