Kerala High Court Upholds Conviction in Cheque Bounce Case, Presumption Under Section 139 of N.I. Act
In a recent verdict, the Kerala High Court upheld the conviction of an individual in a cheque bounce case, highlighting the significance of the presumption established under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The judgment, delivered by the Honorable Mr. Justice P.G. Ajithkumar, reaffirmed the legal principle that a person who signs a cheque remains liable unless they provide evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued for the payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability.
The case, Crl.R.P.No. 344 of 2023, involved Vibin Meleppuram, who had been convicted and sentenced for an offense punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Meleppuram appealed the decision, arguing that the execution of the cheque was not adequately proven and that there was a lack of consideration.
In the judgment, the court stated, “A meaningful reading of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, including, in particular, Sections 20, 87, and 139, makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability.”
The court further addressed the petitioner’s claim that handwriting expert evidence should have been allowed and emphasized, “The presumption which arises on the signing of the cheque cannot be rebutted merely by the report of a handwriting expert. Even if the details in the cheque have not been filled up by the drawer, but by another person, this is not relevant to the defense whether the cheque was issued towards payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability.”
The Kerala High Court also underscored the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, stating that the High Court should not interfere with concurrent findings by lower courts unless those findings are perverse and against the evidence.
Kerala High court dismissed the revision petition, stating that the petitioner had failed to rebut the presumption available under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. This decision reaffirms the importance of properly understanding and applying the legal principles related to cheque bounce cases.
Date of Decision: 7 December 2023
VIBIN MELEPPURAM VS DENNY THOMAS
