Heard counsel for the appellants, who submits before us that the forged cheques had been encashed by R.C. Desai and it is established with the help of the report of hand writing expert that the cheques are forged.

          The case of the complainants is that the power of attorney of the said R.C. Desai had been revoked, but it appears that the respondent-Bank was never informed about the revocation of the power of attorney.  Besides this, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, said R.C. Desai continued to work as Manager for the appellant even after the revocation of the said power of attorney.  Upon enquiries being made with the counsel for the appellants, it was informed that the total cheques which were forged were 68 and the same were encashed over a period of approximately two years.  Even after the revocation of the power of attorney, the cheque-books are said to have been in the custody of R.C. Desai.  The cheques which were presented were bearing the seals of the appellant No.1 and the appellant No.1 herself has been negligent in reposing trust on R.C. Desai which enabled him to encash the cheques in question.  The Banks are not

-3-

equipped with hand writing experts nor they are expected to have any hand writing expert in order to determine as to whether the cheque is apparently forged or not.  The employees of the banks have to compare the signatures and if prima facie on comparison it cannot be said that the cheques issued are forged, payment is made.  The State Commission had in fact in a detailed order considered all the relevant aspects and has also come to the conclusion that the cheques were encashed with the active knowledge of the complainants/appellants. 

In our opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the conclusion of the State Commission cannot be faulted with and we endorse the same.  In view of this, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the appeal is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.