Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Section 138 N.I. Act: Liability of Cheque Signer: Burden of Proof on Accused to Rebut Presumption: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court has reaffirmed the legal principle that a person who signs a cheque and hands it over to the payee remains liable unless substantial evidence is provided to counter the presumption that the cheque was issued to settle a debt or liability. The court's decision came in a Criminal Revision Petition where the petitioner had challenged his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The petitioner, Satya Pal Dhawan, had been convicted for dishonoring a cheque issued in connection with a loan. He argued that there was no legally enforceable debt and that the amount had already been repaid. However, the court held that the burden of proof to establish the absence of a debt or liability was on the accused.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, presiding over the case, referred to legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's observations in the Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar case, which emphasized that the mere act of signing a cheque and delivering it to the payee creates a presumption that it was meant to settle a debt. The court reiterated that this presumption could only be rebutted by the accused through substantial evidence.

Furthermore, the judgment pointed out that the petitioner's claim of repayment lacked material evidence and failed to establish why he did not seek the return of the cheque if it was falsely issued. The court upheld the petitioner's conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act.

As a result of the judgment, the petitioner was directed to pay the remaining fine/compensation and surrender within 15 days as per the lower court's orders. The decision reaffirms the importance of providing strong evidence to counter the presumption of debt when it comes to dishonored cheques.

The case was argued by the petitioner-in-person, while Ms. Sampanna Pani, Mr. Prashant Tripathi, and Mr. Sudesh Pal (AR) represented the respondent, Anil Kumar, in the proceedings.

Date of Decision: 17 October  2023 

SATYA PAL DHAWAN  vs ANIL KUMAR       

Latest Legal News