Second Appeal is Not a Forum for Rehearing or Reassessment of Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Partition Suit Appeal Failure of Justice Must Be Proved, Not Assumed: Calcutta High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Despite Charge Framing Lapse Bail is the Rule, Refusal is an Exception – Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored: Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Ivory Coast National in NDPS Case Courts Must Adopt a Justice-Oriented Approach in Matrimonial Cases: Gauhati High Court Condones Delay in Family Court Appeal FIR Quashing | Breath Analyzer Test Alone Cannot Prove Alcohol Consumption: Patna High Court Quashes FIR Under Bihar Prohibition Law Unregistered Writing Cannot Confer Ownership: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute Allegations of Stalking and Criminal Intimidation Must Be Tested at Trial: Gujarat High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Nestlé Officials Over Maggi Noodles Controversy No Shortcuts in NDPS Investigations – J&K High Court Rebukes Casual Approach of Investigating Officers Sessions Court Cannot Order Re-Investigation: Allahabad High Court Quashes Direction Against Jaypee Hospital If Official Witnesses Are Reliable, Independent Corroboration Is Not a Must:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds NDPS Conviction No Service Tax Can Be Levied on Sale of Lottery Tickets: Supreme Court Rules That Lottery Distributors Are Not Agents Courts Cannot Be Silent Spectators When Justice Is Denied Due to Procedural Errors:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Recall of Bail Rejection Order Section 27 of the Evidence Act Requires Independent Corroboration—Mere Claims by Police Are Not Enough: Supreme Court on Flawed Investigation Confession to Police Is No Confession in Law: Supreme Court Acquits Man, Citing Inadmissibility of Statements Made in Custody Mere 'Last Seen Together' Is Not Enough for Conviction Unless It Forms a Complete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence: Supreme Court Sets Aside Life Sentence in 16-Year-Old Girl’s Murder Failure to Explain Wife’s Death Strengthens Guilt Under Section 106 of Evidence Act" – Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case Child Witness Testimony Cannot Be Discarded Solely on Grounds of Tutoring: Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case

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