JUDGMENT B.N. Patnaik, J. 1. Defendant No. 1, the State Bank of India, Taliparamba Branch, in O.S. No.34 of 1983 on the file of the Sub Court, Tellicherry is the appellant. The suit was filed by the first respondent in this appeal the Kerala State Cooperative Marketing Federation, Cochin for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,08,000/- with future interest at 12% per annum on the principal amount of Rs. One lakh till the date of payment from the appellant Bank and respondent No.2 the Cannanore District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Taliparamba. 2. The plaintiff's case, briefly stated, is as follows: The plaintiff had dealings with the third defendant a Service Cooperative Bank, Taliparamba. A cheque Ext. X1 (No.139708) for an amount of rupees one lakh was issued by the third respondent in favour of the plaintiff. It was sent by post on 20-12-1982 along with some other cheques. But, later it was found that the cheque drawn in the name of the plaintiff was altered by one Sri. K. Narayanan by making it appear that it was drawn in his name. Sri. K. Narayanan, after opening a bank account with the first defendant on 27-12-1982 presented the cheque on 29-12-1982 for collection of the same from the second respondent. Thereafter, he withdrew a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from his account after the same was credited in his name by the first defendant Bank. Defendant No. 3 never used to issue cheques for such large amounts in the name of individuals. After coming to know about the fact that the cheque in question was forged and an amount of Rs. 50,000/- belonging to the plaintiff was withdrawn by Sri. K. Narayanan, the plaintiff intimated the fact to the first defendant through its Sales Officer at Cannanore. A complaint was lodged with the Superintendent of Police, Cannanore and the Circle Inspector of Police, Taliparamba. The investigation revealed that Sri. K. Narayanan was a fictitious person and his whereabouts could not be traced. His name was written in the place of original payee, viz. the plaintiff and the date of the cheque was also found to have been altered. Police filed the final report stating that the case could not be solved. An amount of Rs. 50,000/- is still lying with the first defendant as the balance amount covered by the said cheque (Ext. X1). the plaintiff and the date of the cheque was also found to have been altered. Police filed the final report stating that the case could not be solved. An amount of Rs. 50,000/- is still lying with the first defendant as the balance amount covered by the said cheque (Ext. X1). It is contended that the first defendant appellant has not cared to enquire as to why and under what circumstances a new account was opened by the said K. Narayanan only for the purpose of encashing the cheque in question. An inspection of the cheque would have revealed that the payee's name has been defaced and in his place Shri K. Narayanan's name was written. The first defendant failed to verify and scrutinise the same. The first defendant acted in gross negligence of the duties imposed upon it as bankers of the plaintiff and collected the amount from defendant No.2 without making any enquiry as to the genuineness of the cheque and as such the first defendant has become responsible to pay the entire amount of rupees one lakh to the plaintiff. It is further stated that the second defendant is perfectly aware of the fact that Primary Cooperative Service Societies such as defendant No. never used o issue cheque in the name of individuals for such a huge amount. The cheque transmitted to the 2nd defendant for collection should have been scrutinised and verified before clearing the same. Hence the 2nd defendant has also acted in gross negligence of the duties imposed on it and it is also equally liable to compensate the plaintiff for the loss sustained by them. In spite of issue of a notice calling upon them to pay the amount, neither the first defendant and the 2nd defendant paid it. Hence the suit for realisation of the amount. 3. In the written statement filed by the first defendant, it is admitted that a cheque for a sum of rupees one lakh was presented by a customer named Sri. K. Narayanan, for collection and credit to his account on 29-12-1982. The cheque was sent for clearance to defendant No.2, the Cannanore District Cooperative Central Bank. It was duly honoured and the amount was transferred. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- was withdrawn by the customer on 30-12-1982. Sri. K. Narayanan, for collection and credit to his account on 29-12-1982. The cheque was sent for clearance to defendant No.2, the Cannanore District Cooperative Central Bank. It was duly honoured and the amount was transferred. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- was withdrawn by the customer on 30-12-1982. Sri. K. Narayanan opened the S.B. Account with the first defendant on 24-12-1982 being duly introduced by one M. P. Dharman Panicker, Peon, Multi State Cashew Project Office, Taliparamba, who also has an account in the same branch from January, 1982. Narayanan started an account on 24-12-1982 remitting Rs. 20/- and on 29-12-1982 he remitted Rs. 80/- and obtained cheque book from the Bank. There appeared nothing suspicious on the face of the cheque to the naked eyes and there was no reason for the first defendant to suspect the bona fides of the customer. It is false to say that an inspection of the cheque with the naked eyes would have revealed that the payee's name was defaced. There was no reason for this defendant to presume that Narayanan was a fictitious person. This defendant had acted in good faith and without any negligence. The first defendant is not aware that defendant No.3 never issued cheques in the name of individuals for large amounts. As a Bank, the first defendant had discharged the duty to the customer by accepting the cheque and making payment for the amount in the normal course of its business. The customer was entitled to withdraw the amount lying at his credit and accordingly, the first defendant allowed him to withdraw the sum of Rs. 50,000/-. If it was possible to detect the alterations in the cheque with the naked eyes, the same could not have escaped the notice of the first defendant as well as the second defendant the drawee bank. Finally it is stated that the first defendant has acted in good faith and without any negligence and the whole transaction was done in the ordinary course and there were no circumstances antecedent or present to suspect the matter. Hence they are not liable to pay the amount as claimed. 4. Finally it is stated that the first defendant has acted in good faith and without any negligence and the whole transaction was done in the ordinary course and there were no circumstances antecedent or present to suspect the matter. Hence they are not liable to pay the amount as claimed. 4. The second defendant in the written statement has said that the cheque was perfectly in order on the face of it, and no apparent alterations in it were noticed when it was sent for clearance by the first, defendant The amount was paid in good faith and without any negligence. The second defendant was obliged to honour the cheque in accordance with the mandate contained therein. The amount due under the cheque has been paid after a close scrutiny. But, since the payee specified in the cheque is a customer of the first defendant, the first defendant on behalf of the customer sought to collect the amount due under the said cheque. So, it was the duty of the second defendant to honour it and pay the amount to the collecting Bank on being satisfied that the cheque bears the real signature of the drawer ad the state of his accounts with the second defendant honouring the cheque, followed the usual procedure and norms adopted by the bank. The payment having been made in the due course, this defendant is discharged by the said payment. 5. The learned Sub Judge, on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, rendered the following findings: On a perusal of Ext. X1 cheque with naked eye, it could be seen that there are no visible or apparent defects in the cheque so as to doubt any alterations. Nevertheless when it was examined on 12-11-1987 in the open court in the presence of counsel on both sides, with the help of ultraviolet lamp,) it was found tampered and altered on the following aspects: a) The date of the cheque was overwritten after erasing the original date. b) The name of the payee was written afresh after erasing the original name which ran throughout the space provided in the cheque leaf in that column. c) The original sum mentioned in figures was erased and the same was written afresh. d) Only with the help of ultra violate lamp, the alterations could have been detected. Ext. b) The name of the payee was written afresh after erasing the original name which ran throughout the space provided in the cheque leaf in that column. c) The original sum mentioned in figures was erased and the same was written afresh. d) Only with the help of ultra violate lamp, the alterations could have been detected. Ext. X1 cheque was therefore found to be defaced and forged. The first defendant cannot claim protection under S.131 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the N.I. Act) in as much as the first defendant could not have prove that it received the payment in good faith and without negligence. The learned Sub Judge further held that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was found that the opening of the account by K. Narayanan and deposit of the cheque Ext. X1 for collection was part of the same scheme. The entire transactions was done in haste in as much as a sum of Rs. 100/- was deposited on two dates viz. 24-12-1982 and 29-12-1982 for collection and on the next date the amount was drawn. When no details about the customer were known, the first defendant should have made an enquiry when a cheque of such a huge sum was deposited within a week of the opening of the account. The second defendant viz. the drawee bank is not liable for conversion of the cheque. By relying on the observations made in Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Gopinathan Nair 1972 KLT 518 ), the learned Sub Judge held that the drawee bank is absolved from the liability in a case where the cheque was sent up for collection by the collecting bank. The drawee bank (2nd defendant) cannot be held liable even though it could be said that the second defendant could have averted the contingency had it been a bit more prudent before passing the cheque for payment. No relief is claimed against the defendant. The learned Sub Judge therefore passed a decree in the following terms: "1) The amount of Rs. 50,000/- lying in deposit with interest thereon with the 1st defendant bank in the account No.SB/32/1281 in the name of Kaniyedath Narayanan shall be released in favour of the plaintiff by the 1st defendant bank. 2) The plaintiff is allowed to realise from the 1st defendant bank a sum of Rs. 50,000/- lying in deposit with interest thereon with the 1st defendant bank in the account No.SB/32/1281 in the name of Kaniyedath Narayanan shall be released in favour of the plaintiff by the 1st defendant bank. 2) The plaintiff is allowed to realise from the 1st defendant bank a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in addition to it. 3. The amount of Rs. 1 lakh so payable should be carry interest @ 12 % from 29-12-1982 upto date of decree and thereafter future interest at the rate of 50/- per annum till date of publication. The amount of interest payable or paid in the S.B. Account No.SB 32/1281 for Rs. 50,000/- shall be accounted towards the debt under this decree. 4. The plaintiff is allowed the costs of the suit from the 1st defendant Bank." 6. The learned counsel for the appellant while challenging the aforesaid findings of the learned Sub Judge, contended that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is entitled to the protection under S.131 of the N.I. Act. But, he has fairly conceded that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- which is in deposit in the fictitious account of Sri K. Narayanan may be directed to be paid to the plaintiff as admittedly there is no other claimant and the third defendant in fact had intended to pay the amount of Rs. One Lakh to the plaintiff under this cheque. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent plaintiff contended inter alia that defendant No. 1 being grossly negligent in not making any enquiry before encashment of the cheque, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- with interest as claimed. 8. The only point for consideration in this case is whether the appellant is entitled to get protection under S.131 of the N.I. Act. 9. S.10 of the Act reads as follows: "Payment in due course" means payment in accordance with the apparent tenor of the instrument in good faith and without negligence to any person in possession thereof under circumstances which do not afford a reasonable ground for believing that he is not entitled to receive payment of the amount therein mentioned. 9. S.10 of the Act reads as follows: "Payment in due course" means payment in accordance with the apparent tenor of the instrument in good faith and without negligence to any person in possession thereof under circumstances which do not afford a reasonable ground for believing that he is not entitled to receive payment of the amount therein mentioned. In order that a payment should be held to be made in due course, it should be, firstly, in accordance with the apparent tenor of the instrument; secondly, it must be made in good faith and without negligence; thirdly payment must be made to a person in possession of the instrument; and, fourthly, while making the payment care should be taken to see that no circumstances exist which afford a reasonable ground for believing that the instrument holder is not entitled to receive payment of the amount mentioned in the instrument. The phrase "apparent tenor" seems to indicate the information available on the face of the instrument itself. Factors such as the identity of the payee or of the drawee, the figure of the amount or the date on which or after which the amount becomes payable must be deemed to have been conveyed by the apparent tenor of the instrument. 10. It is also well settled that the forged cheque is not a cheque at all, and not drawn on a banker. But, however, where equities are equal, law shall prevail. Where one of the two innocent parties must suffer for the fraud, that party should suffer whose negligence facilitated the fraud. In other words, if there are two innocent parties, the one whose negligence led to the ultimate loss is primarily responsible. 11. S.131 of the N.I. Act reads as follows: "Non-liability of banker receiving payment of cheque. 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 the true owner of the cheque by reason-only of having received such payment." In Pranendra Mohan Das v. Central Bank of India AIR 1978 Cal. 55 ) is laid down that the relation of a banker and his customer is that of a debtor and creditor with the obligation of honouring customer's orders on the funds in the hands of a banker. 55 ) is laid down that the relation of a banker and his customer is that of a debtor and creditor with the obligation of honouring customer's orders on the funds in the hands of a banker. Banker would only be liable where it has acted negligently and payment is made out of usual course of business. As an agent of the customer a bank is expected to act bona fide and without negligence. 12. This Court in Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Gopinathan Nair ( 1972 KLT 518 ) held that a payment to be a payment in due course, must have been made in good faith and without negligence to the person in possession of a draft in accordance with the apparent tenor of the instrument under circumstances which do not afford a reasonable ground for thinking that the person in possession was not entitled to receive payment. What is negligence is a question of fact and whether or not such negligence is established in a particular case depends upon the facts and circumstances of that case. 13. After referring to various decisions, namely Commissioner of Taxation v. E.S. & A. B ( AIR 1920 PC 88 ), Bharat Bank v. Kishinchand chellaram ( AIR 1955 Mad. 402 ), Bapulal Premchand v. Nath Bank Ltd. (AIR 1946 Bom. 482) and Indian Bank v. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. ( AIR 1981 Mad. 29 ) a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Vysya Bank Ltd. v. Indian Bank, Madras ( AIR 1988 Mad. 256 ) laid down the law precisely as follows: "S. 13.1 is a salient provision made with a view to protect the interests of the banks in their day-to-day activities. In order to attract the application of the section and to avail of the protection given by it, the conditions imposed by the section must be strictly complied with, otherwise the banker's liability for receiving payment of a customer with a defective title in the cheque will remain unaffected. One of the important ingredients of the said provision is that the banker must have received the payment in good faith and without negligence. One of the important ingredients of the said provision is that the banker must have received the payment in good faith and without negligence. The standard by which the absence or otherwise of a negligence is to be determined by reference to the practice of reasonable men carrying on the business of bankers and endeavouring to do so in such a manner as may be calculated to protect themselves and others against fraud. The section does not provide an absolute immunity to the collecting banker, and unless he can bring himself within the conditions formulated by this section, he is left to his common law liability for conversion or for money and received in the event of the person from whom he takes the cheque having no title or a defective title. Since the statutory duty contemplated under this section takes the form of a qualified immunity from a strict liability at common law, the onus of showing that he did take such reasonable care lies upon the defendant banker. Where the customer is in possession of the cheque at the time of delivery for collection, and appears upon the face of it to be the 'holder' ie the payee or the indorsee or the bearer the bank is entitled to assume the customer is the owner of the cheque unless there are facts which are known, or ought to be known, to the banker which would cause a reasonable banker to suspect that the customer is not the true owner. The essential condition, that is the duty to take care is purely one imposed by the statute on the Banker for the benefit of the true owner, as between whom there is no contractual relation giving rise to a duty. It is the price which the banker pays for the protection afforded by the statute. It is therefore from the stand point of the true owner, that the question of good faith and absence of negligence has to be considered. It is the price which the banker pays for the protection afforded by the statute. It is therefore from the stand point of the true owner, that the question of good faith and absence of negligence has to be considered. The question whether the Bank had acted with negligence in the opening of the account will be relevant under S.131 to this extent that if the opening of the account and the deposit of the cheque are really part of one scheme, as where the account itself is opened with the cheque in question or where it is put into account so shortly after the opening of the account as to lead to the inference that it is part of it, then negligence in the matter of opening the account must be treated as negligence in the matter of realisation of the cheque. It might happen that even where an account is opened without a proper enquiry it might continue to be operative upon satisfactorily for some time, but long afterwards a cheque, might put into the account which might turn out to be forged. In such a case it cannot be laid down that as an inexorable rule that negligence in the opening of an account must be treated as negligence in the receipt of the amount of the cheque. The question would then be one of fact as to how far two stages can be regarded as so intimately associated as to be considered as one transaction. Further, the plea of contributory negligence cannot be invoked in such a case. The contributory negligence on the part of the true owner can be no answer by the person, who converts the Article, that he should be let off from his liability because of the negligence of the true owner." 14. Under S.87 of the N.I. Act, any material alteration of a negotiable instrument renders it void as against any person being a party to that instrument it the time of such alteration provided he himself has not consented to such alteration. The following alterations are to be material, that is alteration of the date, the sum payable, the time of payment, the place of payment, the signature of the drawer and the original payee or addition or deletion or change of the name of the payee therein without the consent of the drawer. 15. The following alterations are to be material, that is alteration of the date, the sum payable, the time of payment, the place of payment, the signature of the drawer and the original payee or addition or deletion or change of the name of the payee therein without the consent of the drawer. 15. In Paget's Law of Banking (Maurice Megrah and F.R. Ryder Ninth Edition) at pages 330 to 332, the author has pointed out with reference to various. English Laws, as to what would amount to negligence on the part of the collecting bank. It would be futile to try and formulate particular conditions or circumstances which might have established negligence. Broadly speaking, the banker must exercise the same care and forethought in the interest of the true owner, with regard to cheques paid in by the customer, as a reasonable business man would bring to bear on similar business of his own. The bank's action must be in accordance with the ordinary practice of bankers and the bank cannot be held to be liable merely because they have not subjected an account to microscopic examination. One should attribute to the clerks and cashiers of the bank the degree of intelligence and knowledge ordinarily required of persons in their position to fit them for the discharge of their duties, but that no microscopic examination of cheques paid in for collection was necessary. It is not expected that officials of banks should also be amateur detectives. A thorough enquiry into the history of each cheque would render banking business impracticable. The author referred to the judgment of Diplock LJ in Marfani & Co. Ltd. v. Midland Bank Ltd. (1968) 1 Lloyed's Rep. 411 at 422, wherein it has been said: "The only respect in which this substituted statutory duty differs from a common law cause of action in negligence is that, since it takes the form of a qualified immunity from a strict liability at common law, the onus of showing that he did take such reasonable care lies upon the defendant banker. Granted good faith in the banker (the other condition of the immunity) the usual matter with respect to which the banker must take reasonable care is to satisfy himself that his own customer's title to the cheque delivered to him for collection is not defective, ie. that no other person is the true owner of it. Granted good faith in the banker (the other condition of the immunity) the usual matter with respect to which the banker must take reasonable care is to satisfy himself that his own customer's title to the cheque delivered to him for collection is not defective, ie. that no other person is the true owner of it. Where the customer is in possession of the cheque at the time of delivery for collection, and appears upon the face of it to be the "holder" ie. the payee or indorsee or the bearer, the banker is, in my view, entitled to assume that the customer is the owner of the cheque unless there are facts which are known, or ought to be known, to the banker which would cause a reasonable banker to suspect that the customer is not the true owner. What facts ought to be known to the banker, ie. what inquiries he should make, and what facts are sufficient to cause him reasonably to suspect that the customer is not the true owner, must depend upon current banking practice, and change as that practice changes. Cases decided 30 years ago, when the use by the general public of banking facilities was much less widespread, may not be a reliable guide to what the duty of a careful banker, in relation to inquiries and as to facts which should give rise to suspicion, is today. The duty of care owed by the banker to the true owner of the cheque does not arise until the cheque is delivered to him by his customer. It is then, and then only, that any duty to make inquiries can arise. Any antecedent inquiries that he has made are relevant only in so far as they have already brought to his knowledge facts which a careful banker ought to ascertain about his customers before accepting for collection the cheque which is the subject matter of the action and so have relieved him of any need to ascertain them again when the cheque which is the subject matter of the action is delivered to him. What the court has to do is to look at all the circumstances at the time of the acts complained of, and to ask itself; were those circumstances such as would cause a reasonable banker, possessed of such information about his customer as a reasonable banker would possess, to suspect that his customer was not the true owner of the cheque?" 16. Dr. P.W. Rege, in his book on Law of Negotiable Instruments, Ist Edition, at page 914, has correctly stated the law in respect of the liability of a collecting banker as follows: "(1) As a general rule the collecting banker shall be exposed to his usual liability under common law for conversion or for money had and received, as against the 'true owner' of a cheque or a draft, in the event the customer from whom he collects the cheque or draft has no title or a defective title. (2) The banker, however, may claim protection from such normal liability provided he fulfils strictly the conditions laid down in S.131 or S.131A of the Act and one of those conditions is that he must have received the payment in good faith and without negligence. (3) It is the banker seeking protection who has on his shoulders the onus of proving that he acted in good faith and without negligence. (4) The standard of care to be exercised by the collecting banker to escape the charge of negligence depends upon the general practice of bankers which may go on changing from time to time with the enormous spread of banking activities and cases decided a few decades ago may not probably offer an unfailing guidance in determining the question about negligence today. (5) Negligence is a question of fact and what is relevant in determining the liability of a collecting banker is not his negligence in opening the account of the customer but negligence in the collection of the relevant cheque unless, of course, the opening of the account and the depositing of the cheque in question therein form part and parcel of one scheme as where the account is opened with the cheque in question or deposited therein so soon after the opening of the account as to lead to an inference that depositing the cheque and opening the account are interconnected moves in an integrated plan. (6) Negligence in opening the account such as failure to fulfil the procedure for opening an account which is prescribed by the bank itself or opening an account of an unknown person or non existing person or with dubious introduction may lead to a cogent, though not conclusive, proof of negligence particularly if the cheque in question has been deposited in the account soon after the opening thereof. (7) The standard of care expected from a banker in collecting the cheque does not require him to subject the cheque to a minute and microscopic examination but disregarding the circumstances about the cheque which on the face of it give rise to a suspicion may amount to negligence on the part of the collecting banker. (8) The question of good faith and negligence is to be judged from the stand point of the true owner towards whom the banker owes no contractual duty but the statutory duly which is created by this section and it is a price which the banker pays for seeking protection, under the statute, from the otherwise larger liability he would be exposed to under Common law. (9) Allegation of contributory negligence against the paying banker would provide no defence for a collecting banker who has not collected the amount in good faith and without negligence." 17. In the light of the aforesaid principles, it has to be decided as to whether in this case there was negligence on the part of the first defendant in not making any enquiry before encashing the cheque (Ext. X1). 18. There is no dispute this stage that Ext. X1 bearing cheque No.139708 dated 16-12-1982 was drawn on the second defendant Bank by the third defendant - Society for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- payable to the plaintiff. The relevant counterfoil of the cheque has been marked as Ext. B9. It is also found that until the cheque in question was examined with the help of an ultraviolet lamp in the open court the forgery as alleged could not be detected. Neither the first defendant Bank nor the second defendant Bank was in a position to detect it by observing with the naked eyes. The signature of the drawer appearing on the cheque has not been forged. Thus both the defendants honoured the cheque in due course In accordance with the apparent tenor. 19. Neither the first defendant Bank nor the second defendant Bank was in a position to detect it by observing with the naked eyes. The signature of the drawer appearing on the cheque has not been forged. Thus both the defendants honoured the cheque in due course In accordance with the apparent tenor. 19. PW 1, who is the Regional Manager of the plaintiff Federation, Taliparamba stales that they have received the cross cheque (Ext. X1) for Rs. 1,00,000/- from the third defendant Bank, and it was dated 16-12-1982. He sent this cheque along with other cheques to the Regional Officer at Kozhikode, by ordinary post. The envelop containing the cheque was handed over to a Peon of the Pappinissery Service Cooperative Bank for its posting in the Post Office. The Peon has been examined as PW 2. He states that PW 1 gave him a sealed cover to despatch it by post. He did not know the contents of the envelop. He posted it on the same day. Admittedly, it was not despatched by registered post. Thus it appears that the cheque has been stolen in the transit, either before it was posted in the Post Office or thereafter. The test of negligence is whether the transaction of paying in any given cheque coupled with the circumstances antecedent and present were so out of the ordinary course that it ought to have aroused doubts in the bankers' mind and caused them to make enquiry. The requirement of acting in good faith is satisfied if the employee of the Bank act honestly in regard to the collection of the instruments paid in by the customer. Thus the protection would be lost if an employee knew that the customer's title thereto was defective. In-opening an account for a stranger without a satisfactory reference and without enquiry as to the customer's standing, may well amount to the antecedent act of negligence on the part of the Bank. If the person whose name is given to the Bank as a referee is unknown to the bank, it may be prudent to enquire concerning his standing and respectability, for it sometimes happens that two dishonest person namely, the prospective customer and the referee, conspire to deceive the bank and it is not unknown for the unsupposed referee to be none other than the new customer under another name. Even though a cheque or similar instrument is payable to the customer for whose account the Bank is asked to collect it, the customer may not have a good title thereto, and there may be special circumstances which should-put the bank upon enquiry. In this case, it is deposed by D.W. 1, the Branch Manager of defendant No.1 Bank that Sri. K. Narayanan was introduced by a person named Dharman Panicker, who had an account with the Bank at that time. At the time when Narayanan opened the account, there was no cause for suspicion inasmuch as an account will be opened after introduction by a person known to the Bank. The introduction was by an account holder known to the Bank. No cheque was produced at the time of the opening of the account. It is true, that Ext. X1 cheque was deposited in the bank only about five days after the opening of the account. In the cross examination he states that he had seen Narayanan twice. He enquired about the place where the business is conducted by him and he was satisfied that the address given by him was correct. It is further stated that if the account is opened after a proper introduction, there is no necessity of further enquiry. Nothing has been brought out from the testimony of D.W. 1 as to whether under any of the relevant rules, they were duty bound to make further enquiries about the standing of a customer after the account was opened being introduced by a known account holder. The usual practice followed in every bank is that an account is opened in favour of the customer if he is introduced by another account holder known to the Bank. In this case, no suspicious circumstances came to the notice of the bank when the account in the name of Narayanan was opened on deposit of Rs. 20/- at the first instance and later Rs. 80/- after being introduced by another account holder. In the relevant document, the customer identified himself as a dealer in hill products. When he produced the cheque no suspicion could arise as to whether he was in a position to deposit such an amount. When business people produce such cheques of huge amount, usually there will not be any suspicion inasmuch as now-a-days dealing in goods worth lakhs is not uncommon. When he produced the cheque no suspicion could arise as to whether he was in a position to deposit such an amount. When business people produce such cheques of huge amount, usually there will not be any suspicion inasmuch as now-a-days dealing in goods worth lakhs is not uncommon. It is also not uncommon to withdraw a part of the amount deposited in the Bank by a business man as and when he requires it. In this case, the customer named Narayanan did not want to withdraw the whole amount but only a part of it. Obviously, there was no cause for suspicion when it was found by the employee that only a part of the amount was sought to be withdrawn. 20. It has been found by the court below and it has also been testified by D.W. 1 and D.W. 2 that it was not at all possible to detect the forgery at first sight with naked eyes. D.W. 1 has stated in the cross examination that when an account holder places a cheque for a large amount, that cheque has to be scrutinised. He in fact scrutinised the cheque. The bank did not have an ultraviolet lamp. He would have used it, if it were available. There is no mandatory rule to examine a cheque for large amounts with ultraviolet lamp. Ext. X1 was not subjected to scrutiny under ultraviolet rays. It is not possible to examine all the cheques presented in the Bank with the ultraviolet lamp. D.W. 2 is the Branch Manager of the second defendant Bank. In the cross examination, he has deposed that cheques for huge amounts were issued to individuals by the third defendant. When Ext. X1 was examined, no irregularity was noticed and it did not evoke any suspicion. The name of the payee, the date or amount did not seem to have been altered. The Bank did not have ultraviolet lamp. It does not appear from the evidence of any other witnesses that any of the employees of the defendants 1 and 2 Banks was under any legal obligation to examine the cheque in question with the help of an ultraviolet lamp when it was presented for collection. If there had been any visible indication of alteration, possibly, it would not have escaped the notice of D.W. 1 or D.W. 2. If there had been any visible indication of alteration, possibly, it would not have escaped the notice of D.W. 1 or D.W. 2. D.W. 1 states that he has been working as the Manager of the Bank for quite a long time and D.W. 2 states that he is working as the branch manager of the Bank from 1981 onwards. There is no reason to disbelieve D.W. 1 and D.W. 2. It has been held that the standard of care expected from a banker in collecting the cheque does not require him to subject the cheque to a minute and microscopic examination. It has not been found that the 1st defendant Bank opened the account of Narayanan in violation of any procedure prescribed by the bank authorities or without proper introduction. It could not be established that the opening of the account and the depositing of the cheque in question formed part and parcel of one scheme in as much as the account was not opened with the cheque in question and it could not also be established that the depositing the cheque and opening the account are interconnected moves in an integrated plan, so as to arouse any suspicion regarding the genuineness of the cheque. 21. For the reasons stated above we find that the 1st defendant has acted in good faith and without negligence and as such it is protected under S.131 of the N.I. Act. But, however, it is liable to pay the balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- which is still in deposit, to the plaintiff with interest. 22. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with proportionate costs. Instead of a sum of Rupees One Lakh, defendant No. 1 Bank is directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 29-12-1982 upto the date of the decree of the lower court and thereafter future interest at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of payment. The decree of the court below is modified to the extent indicated above.