Ocular Evidence Prevails Over Medical Findings: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Despite Negative Semen Report & Police Lapses High Court Cannot Pass Inconsistent Orders: Supreme Court Quashes Demolition Order Passed Despite Earlier Restraint In CMDA Regularisation Dispute Supreme Court Upholds Validity Of Open University Degrees Obtained Prior To 2017 Cut-Off Must Be A Polluter Before Being Held Absolutely Liable: Supreme Court Sets Aside NGT Order Against Art Of Living Over Yamuna Event, Orders ₹5 Cr Refund Father Cannot Be Deprived Of Minor's Custody Unless Proved Unfit: Allahabad High Court Hands Over 4-Yr-Old Child To Father, Sets Aside Trial Court Order Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Integral To Personal Liberty': Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail As 24 Witnesses Remain Unexamined No Specific Chemical Opinion That Seized Substance Was Ganja: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Under Section 2(iii)(b) NDPS Act Mere Pendency Of Criminal Cases Simplicitor No Ground For Externment': Karnataka High Court Quashes Raichur SDM Order Order VI Rule 16 CPC | Defendants Enjoy Greater Latitude In Altering Defence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Explains Doctrinal Leeway Under CPC Boarding Running Train Not Self-Inflicted Injury: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Order Denying Compensation Possession Of One Co-Sharer Is Possession Of All: J&K&L High Court Cannot Invoke Article 226 For Registering FIR Or Restoring Water Supply: Kerala High Court Natural Guardian's Sale Of Minor's Property Without Court Nod Is Voidable, Extinguishes If Not Challenged Within 3 Years Of Majority: Madras High Court Orissa High Court Rejects Cancer-Survivor Husband's Plea To Transfer Maintenance Case Presumption Of Correctness Of Judicial Records Not Absolute And Can Be Rebutted By Direct Evidence: Kerala High Court on Married Daughter Cannot Challenge Partition After 21-Year Slumber If She Had Knowledge: Madhya Pradesh High Court Kerala High Court Orders Immediate Suspension Of Lakshadweep CJM For Allegedly Forging Witness Deposition To Convict Accused Defect In Served Copy Of Affidavit Not Fatal: Supreme Court Restores Election Petition Challenging Lok Sabha Poll Result, Clarifies Law On Form-25 Attestation

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