Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers    |     Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court    |     Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case    |     Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case    |     Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute    |     Paternity Established Through SSC and Appointment Order, Legal Obligation to Maintain Unmarried Daughter: Andhra Pradesh High Court    |     No Appeal Shall Be Heard Without Disputed Tax Deposit: Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 96(b) of the Cantonment Act, 2006    |     Parties Must Choose Peace Over Litigation: Calcutta High Court Denies FIR Quashing in Family Dispute, Highlights Mediation Option    |     Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Recruitment of 1091 Assistant Professors and 67 Librarians In Punjab Due to Procedural Flaws    |     Res Judicata Bars Reconsideration of Adoption Validity in Second Round of Litigation: Jammu & Kashmir High Court    |     Candidates who use a party’s symbol must be deemed members of that party: Kerala High Court Upholds Disqualification for Defection    |     Inconsistencies in Eyewitness Accounts and Lack of Forensic Certainty Lead to Acquittal: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case    |     Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Notices Under Section 148 Due to Invalid Sanction by JCIT    |     Summons Under PMLA for Further Investigation Does Not Infringe Right Against Self-Incrimination: Telangana HC    |     Termination During Probation Is Lawful if Concealment of Criminal Case Is Proven: Allahabad HC    |     Disproportionate Fine Cannot Be Imposed for Recovery of 1 Liter of Country-made Liquor: Patna High Court    |     Prosecution failed to prove identity of remains and establish murder beyond reasonable doubt: Orissa High Court Acquit Ex-Husband    |     Despite 12 Injuries on the Victim, No Intention to Kill Found: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 304 Part-II IPC    |     Governor’s sanction suffers from non-application of mind: Karnataka High Court Stays Governor’s Sanction for Investigation Against CM Siddaramaiah    |    

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       

Similar News