Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
No Authority to Lead Evidence via Affidavit - In proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused cannot be permitted to lead evidence through affidavits or affidavits-of-evidence. The courts have clarified that such procedures are not permissible, and the accused must give evidence by stepping into the witness box. The Magistrate's direction to file affidavits in lieu of oral examination was held to be incorrect ["Conroy J.F. De Melo, Son of Adv. Fortunato De Melo vs Civilco Engineers & Associates - Bombay"].
Nature of Proceedings and Burden of Proof - The proceedings under Section 138 are criminal in nature and not civil suits. The complainant's case largely depends on documentary evidence, and the accused may not be required to lead evidence at all, relying instead on the presumption under Sections 139 and 118 of the NI Act. However, the accused has the right to rebut this presumption by leading evidence showing full payment or other defenses ["M.Star Janet Joy vs T.Justin Dhas - Madras"], ["M.Devaraj S/O Late V Marishetty vs Jothi Anand S/O Syamraj - Karnataka"].
Presumption and Rebuttal Rights - Under Sections 139 and 118 of the NI Act, there is a statutory presumption in favor of the complainant that the cheque was issued for the discharge of a debt or liability. This presumption is rebuttable, and the accused must lead evidence to establish payment or other defenses. Failure to rebut the presumption can lead to conviction ["Subrata Bose VS Mithu Ghosh - Crimes"], ["Satyaveer Singh VS Suraj - Himachal Pradesh"], ["Budh Dev VS Parveen Sharma - Himachal Pradesh"].
Evidence and Procedure for the Accused - The accused is generally required to appear and give evidence in person; filing affidavits in lieu of oral evidence is not permitted unless explicitly allowed by law or amendments, which are not applicable in the context of Section 138 proceedings. The courts have emphasized the importance of oral examination and cross-examination for fair trial ["M.Devaraj S/O Late V Marishetty vs Jothi Anand S/O Syamraj - Karnataka"], ["Thangaesakki vs Sivasami - Madras"].
Judicial Precedents on Evidence and Proceedings - Courts have consistently held that proceedings under Section 138 are quasi-criminal, and the accused's right to lead evidence is fundamental. Quashing of complaints on legal or technical grounds without proper adjudication of evidence is improper. The courts also noted that disputes of fact should be resolved after evidence is led, not by summarily dismissing complaints ["Pradip Patangia VS Tarulata Saikia, W/o Dr. Jayanta Kr. Das - Gauhati"], ["- Himachal Pradesh"].
Authority of the Court and Legal Limitations - The courts have clarified that the law does not permit the accused to lead evidence via affidavits in Section 138 cases, and the procedure involves oral testimony, cross-examination, and rebuttal. The statutory framework emphasizes oral evidence, and any deviation requires explicit legal provisions, which are absent ["Amarjeet Singh VS Om Pal - Punjab and Haryana"], ["Shailza Huddone (Sain) VS Bal Krishan Rawat - Himachal Pradesh"].
Conclusion:The Negotiable Instruments Act, specifically Section 138, does not authorize the accused to lead evidence through affidavits or affidavits-of-evidence. The proceedings are criminal in nature, requiring oral evidence, and the accused's right to rebut presumptions can be exercised through cross-examination and oral defense. Courts have consistently held that affidavits cannot replace oral examination in these cases, and procedural deviations are not permissible under the law ["Conroy J.F. De Melo, Son of Adv. Fortunato De Melo vs Civilco Engineers & Associates - Bombay"].
In the world of business transactions, cheques remain a cornerstone despite digital shifts. However, when a cheque bounces under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), disputes often arise over the drawer's authority to issue or fill it. A common query is: 138 negotiable instruments act no authority to lead evidence. Does the law bar the accused from presenting evidence to challenge the authority to fill a blank or incomplete cheque?
This blog post dives deep into the legal framework, statutory presumptions, and court rulings. We'll clarify that while strong presumptions favor the holder, the door isn't entirely shut on rebuttal evidence—provided it's credible and relevant. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice. Consult a lawyer for your case.
Section 138 NI Act penalizes cheque dishonour due to insufficient funds or similar reasons, provided a demand notice is issued and payment isn't made within 15 days. But what if the cheque was signed blank and filled later without authority?
Section 20 NI Act addresses this: Where the signature on an instrument is not complete, the holder is authorised to complete it. Specifically, signing and delivering a stamped paper, which is wholly blank or incomplete, gives a prima facie authority to the holder to fill in the amount and complete the instrument, liable in the capacity in which the signer signed Purushothaman Nair, P. VS Sreekantan Nair - 2013 0 Supreme(Ker) 924P. Purushothaman Nair VS Sreekantan Nair - 2013 0 Supreme(Ker) 376.
This creates a statutory presumption of authority, reinforced by Sections 118 (presumption as to consideration) and 139 (presumption as to debt/liability). These shift the initial burden to the accused (drawer) to rebut them APS FOREX SERVICES PVT. LTD. VS SHAKTI INTERNATIONAL FASHION LINKERS - 2020 2 Supreme 320.
No—the law does not categorically prohibit the accused from leading evidence. The presumption is rebuttable, but rebuttal demands more than mere denial.
Key points:- Presumption of authority to fill up is statutory and rebuttable APS FOREX SERVICES PVT. LTD. VS SHAKTI INTERNATIONAL FASHION LINKERS - 2020 2 Supreme 320.- Accused can adduce evidence showing no authority was granted or filling was unauthorized/fraudulent APS FOREX SERVICES PVT. LTD. VS SHAKTI INTERNATIONAL FASHION LINKERS - 2020 2 Supreme 320.- Mere denial of signature or authority is insufficient; cogent, credible evidence is required APS FOREX SERVICES PVT. LTD. VS SHAKTI INTERNATIONAL FASHION LINKERS - 2020 2 Supreme 320Bharat Barrel And Drum Manufacture Company LTD. VS Amin Chand Payrelal - 1999 2 Supreme 187.- Burden lies heavily on the drawer APS FOREX SERVICES PVT. LTD. VS SHAKTI INTERNATIONAL FASHION LINKERS - 2020 2 Supreme 320.
Courts emphasize: The accused must produce cogent evidence to establish lack of authority or invalidity APS FOREX SERVICES PVT. LTD. VS SHAKTI INTERNATIONAL FASHION LINKERS - 2020 2 Supreme 320. Vague claims won't dismantle the presumption.
To rebut, produce:- Written authority documents or lack thereof.- Prior correspondence proving no consent.- Credible witnesses to fraud or misuse.
The accused can rebut it by adducing evidence that the authority to fill up was not granted or that the filling was unauthorized or fraudulent APS FOREX SERVICES PVT. LTD. VS SHAKTI INTERNATIONAL FASHION LINKERS - 2020 2 Supreme 320.
Handwriting analysis or expert testimony on signatures/misuse is typically rejected if signatures are admitted or undisputed.
Courts have held that expert evidence (e.g., handwriting analysis) is generally not sufficient to rebut the presumption of authority when signatures are not disputed Manoj Sharma VS Anil Aggarwal - 2012 0 Supreme(Del) 2583.
In one case, the accused sought to send the cheque for handwriting comparison under Section 391 CrPC, but courts refused: Presumption of endorsements on cheque being genuine operates in favour of holder in due course... accused could have procured certified copy of his specimen signatures from Bank Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod VS State Of Gujarat - 2024 2 Supreme 150. The appellate court wouldn't aid in collecting defense evidence at that stage, as presumptions favor the complainant Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod VS State Of Gujarat - 2024 2 Supreme 150.
Another ruling: If at all, appellant was desirous of proving that signatures... were not genuine, then he could have... summoned concerned Bank official... Despite having opportunity, accused did not Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod VS State Of Gujarat - 2024 2 Supreme 150.
Courts consistently uphold presumptions while allowing fair rebuttal:- Under Sections 118/139, once execution is admitted, presumption holds unless probable defense is raised HDFC Bank Ltd. VS Mohinder Singh - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 676. The accused has the burden to raise a probable defense and rebut the presumption HDFC Bank Ltd. VS Mohinder Singh - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 676.- Factual disputes, like authority, are for trial, not quashing: Legal presumption under Section 139... favors the complainant, and factual disputes must be resolved at trial Balkour Singh VS State of Punjab - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 1650.- Trial courts must properly appreciate evidence; failure can lead to acquittal reversal JAYDEVSINH BAHADURSINH ZALA @ JAYUBHA V/s STATE OF GUJARAT - 2025 Supreme(GUJ) 478.- Additional evidence under Section 311 CrPC isn't for delaying tactics post-opportunities given Duni Chand VS Amar Chand - 2022 Supreme(HP) 781.
These cases reinforce: Evidence must be timely, relevant, and robust. Technical defenses alone fail.
For the Accused (Drawer):- Don't rely on denial or solo expert reports—bolster with direct proof.- Act early: Challenge during defense, not belatedly.- Example: Bank records or witnesses showing blank cheque misuse.
For Complainants (Holders):- Leverage presumptions; prove holder status (even via power of attorney with personal knowledge) Manoj Kumar Bisht vs Ankit Somani.- Courts dismiss premature quashing pleas on notice service or knowledge Manoj Kumar Bisht vs Ankit Somani.
Limitations:- Expert opinion alone insufficient if signatures admitted Manoj Sharma VS Anil Aggarwal - 2012 0 Supreme(Del) 2583.- Presumption intact without clear fraud proof APS FOREX SERVICES PVT. LTD. VS SHAKTI INTERNATIONAL FASHION LINKERS - 2020 2 Supreme 320.
Recommendations:- Accused: Gather direct evidence like correspondence or witnesses APS FOREX SERVICES PVT. LTD. VS SHAKTI INTERNATIONAL FASHION LINKERS - 2020 2 Supreme 320.- Supplement experts cautiously.- Courts: Scrutinize per statutory framework.
Rarely, but possible with:- Clear proof of no authority APS FOREX SERVICES PVT. LTD. VS SHAKTI INTERNATIONAL FASHION LINKERS - 2020 2 Supreme 320.- Fraudulent filling evidenced concretely.
The presumption can be rebutted if the accused adduces clear, credible evidence showing that the authority to fill up was not granted or was fraudulently obtained APS FOREX SERVICES PVT. LTD. VS SHAKTI INTERNATIONAL FASHION LINKERS - 2020 2 Supreme 320.
Under NI Act Section 138, there's no absolute bar on leading evidence to challenge cheque fill authority. Section 20 implies prima facie authority, backed by Sections 118/139 presumptions. Accused can rebut with credible evidence, but mere denial or weak expert opinion fails APS FOREX SERVICES PVT. LTD. VS SHAKTI INTERNATIONAL FASHION LINKERS - 2020 2 Supreme 320Manoj Sharma VS Anil Aggarwal - 2012 0 Supreme(Del) 2583.
Key Takeaways:- Presumption favors holder—rebut with cogent proof.- Expert evidence limited if signatures undisputed.- Trial is arena for factual fights Balkour Singh VS State of Punjab - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 1650.- Prepare thoroughly to avoid conviction.
Cheque disputes hinge on evidence quality. Stay informed, but seek professional advice tailored to your situation. For businesses, robust documentation prevents such battles.
References:1. APS FOREX SERVICES PVT. LTD. VS SHAKTI INTERNATIONAL FASHION LINKERS - 2020 2 Supreme 320: Presumption under Sections 118/139; rebuttal burden.2. Purushothaman Nair, P. VS Sreekantan Nair - 2013 0 Supreme(Ker) 924: Section 20 prima facie authority.3. Manoj Sharma VS Anil Aggarwal - 2012 0 Supreme(Del) 2583: Expert evidence limits.4. Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod VS State Of Gujarat - 2024 2 Supreme 150: Handwriting expert rejection.
This post draws from judicial precedents for educational purposes. Laws evolve; verify current status.
#NIACT138, #ChequeBounce, #NILaw
Thereafter, the Magistrate has proceeded to direct the Accused to lead his evidence by filing an affidavit, which again is not permissible, even in complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. ... By the impugned orders, the J.M.F.C. has dismissed an application filed by the Petitioner, the original Accused in these proceedings, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and refused leave to the Accused to #HL_START....
The trial court and the first appellate court have noted that in the case under Section 138 of the NI Act the complainant need not show in the first instance that he had the capacity. The proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act is not a civil suit. ... of the Negotiable Instruments (hereinafter referred as 'NI') Act. ... As per Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the holder in the due Course has every....
As per the above provision, the complaint under Section 138 NI Act can be made by the payee or the holder in due course. ... Magistrate, NI Act, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi whereby the petitioner was summoned ("impugned order" in short) in complaint case no. 36939/2019 under Section 138 read with Section 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 ("NI Act" in short) and quashing of the proceedings arising ... Manoj Kumar Bis....
Thus, complainant is prosecuting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act. ... Instruments Act ('N.I Act' for short). ... However, no similar provision is made in the N.I Act permitting accused to lead examination-in-chief evidence of himself and his witnesses by way of affidavit. Necessarily, the accused and his witnesses are required to give evidence by stepping into t....
The appellant was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(hereinafter being referred to as ‘NI Act’) before the learned trial Court with an allegation that the cheque to the tune of Rs. 10 lakhs issued by the appellant in favour of the complainant ... So far as the allegation of the accused appellant that he did not receive the notice under Section 138 of the NI Act is concerned, it would be for....
Trial Court record reveals that after recording preliminary evidence, accused was summoned to face prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act. On his appearance, he was charge-sheeted under Section 138 of the NI Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. ... The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that all basic ingredients of Section 138 as also of Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. ... Mohinder Singh’,....
able to prove the case under Section 138 of the N.I. ... The aforesaid observations of the appellate Court are beyond the scope of appreciating evidence in respect of provisions relating to adjudication of offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Section 139 of the N.I. ... It is true that this is a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. ... In Tedhi Singh –V....
The trial court and the first appellate court have noted that in the case under Section 138 of the NI Act, the complainant need not show in the first instance that he had the capacity. The proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act are not a civil suit. ... of NI Act were duly satisfied. ... 14.2 In the context of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881it was held that when the payee....
of the Negotiable Instruments Act. ... The respondent herein has filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This complaint was filed in the year 2016 and is still pending adjudication. ... After the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and after seven opportunities were granted to him to lead his evidence, he failed to lead complete evidence....
Section 138 of the NI Act deals with dishonour of cheques and to make out a prima facie against the accused, the complainant has to fulfill the ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act, which are as follows:- (i) The drawing of a cheque by person on an account maintained by him ... Though, the Court has the power to quash the criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act on the legal issues like limitation, etc. criminal ....
2. By way of the present application, the applicant has prayed to grant leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 27.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gondal in Criminal Case No.1535 of 2022. The trial court's failure to properly appreciate evidence can lead to a successful challenge against an acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 1. Heard learned advocate Dr.Hiren S. Somaiya for the applicant and learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the respondent – State.
In view of the above, I find that there is no ground to quash the proceedings initiated under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act.
The question has been again considered by the Apex Court in Govindan Kutty Menon K.N. v. C.D.Shaji [2011 (4) KHC 722 : 2011 (4) KLT 857]. During the pendency of criminal proceedings before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, the parties appeared before the Lok Adalat and the matter was settled upon payment of an amount that was agreed to. The said case involved proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Thus, no case made out under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is further submitted that the petitioner owes no debt or liability against the complainant.
Proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 It is noteworthy that no amendment has been effected to Section 19 of the Court Fees Act.
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
