Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.
Dinesh Dixit – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13033 of 2023
Decided On : 10-04-2024
Negotiable Instruments - Cheque Dishonour - Sections 118, 138, 139 of NI Act - The court emphasized the rebuttable presumptions regarding the validity of a cheque and the burden of proof on the accused to demonstrate that the cheque was not issued for a debt or liability.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of an application to refer a cheque for handwriting analysis, claiming coercion in signing the cheque, while the respondent argued that the signature's admission negated the need for such analysis.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the mere admission of the signature on the cheque established a presumption of liability under the NI Act, and the details filled in by another party did not invalidate the cheque.
Issues: Whether the rejection of the application for handwriting analysis was justified given the admission of the signature and the legal presumptions under the NI Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the presumption of liability under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act remains unless the accused provides sufficient evidence to rebut it, and the filling of cheque details by another party does not invalidate the cheque.
Result: The petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Sri Sita Ram Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned AGA-I appearing for the State-respondent.
2. The present petition has been filed seeking to assail the order dated 25.7.2023 passed in Complaint Case No. 3553 of 2014, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) in terms of which the application filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to get the hand writing in which the amount and the date had been filled up on the cheque, be referred for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), has been rejected. The subsequent order dated 24.8.2023 whereby the criminal revision filed thereagainst, was dismissed, is also sought to be assailed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to assail the order rejecting the application seeking reference to the FSL by submitting that the signatures of the petitioner had been obtained on the cheque under coercion, and accordingly an application dated 17.7.2023 was submitted for getting the hand writing in which the date and the amount had been filled up on the cheque, verified by the FSL.
4. It is sought to be contended that the learned Magistrate has erred in rejecting the aforesaid application moved by the petitioner and that the revisional Court has also erred in dismissing the revision filed thereagainst.
5. Learned AGA-I has submitted that once the petitioner had admitted his signatures on the cheque, the hand writing in which the date and the amount had been filled up would not be material inasmuch as there is no requirement under law that the said particulars be filled up by the drawer of the cheque.
6. In order to consider the rival submissions, the relevant provisions under the NI Act are being referred to:
(a) of consideration:-that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration.
(b) as to date:-that every negotiable instrument bearing a date was made or drawn on such date.
(c) as to time of acceptance:-that every accepted bill of exchange was accepted within a reasonable time after its date and before its maturity.
(d) as to time of transfer:-that every transfer of a negotiable instrument was made before its naturity.
(e) as to order of indorsements:-that the indorsements appearing upon a negotiable instrument were made in the order in which they appear then on.
(f) as to stamp:-that a lost promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque was duly stamped.
(g) that holder is a holder in due course:-that the holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course: provided that, where the instrutment has been obtained from its lawful owner, or from any person in lawful custody thereof, by means of an offence or fraud, or has been obtained from the maker or acceptor thereof by means of an offence or fraud, or for unlawful consideration, the burden of proving that the holder is a holder in due course lies upon him.
138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.-Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which
The court reaffirmed that the presumption of a cheque being issued for a debt is rebuttable, and the burden lies on the accused to prove otherwise.
The presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, but the burden lies on the accused to provide evidence to the contrary.
Dishonour of cheque – Whereas prosecution must prove guilt of an accused beyond all reasonable doubt, standard of proof so as to prove a defence on part of accused is preponderance of probabilities.
The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act mandates that a cheque is presumed to be issued for discharge of a debt unless the accused proves otherwise.
Dishonour of cheque – Appeal against acquittal – Presumption under Section 139 read with Section 118 of NI Act is essentially based on pure common sense – Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.....
The presumption in favor of the complainant under the N.I. Act is rebuttable, and the standard of proof required to prove a defense in a criminal case is preponderance of probabilities.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the rebuttable presumption under Section 139 NI Act and the burden of proof on the accused to rebut the presumption of discharge of debt or liabili....
A presumption of debt exists under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which the accused failed to rebut, affirming liability for dishonored cheques.
The presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act is a presumption of law, as distinguished from the presumption of facts. Presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with the presumption of i....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
