Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Absence of Reply Notice as Presumption of Guilt - The legal framework indicates that when a legal notice demanding repayment is duly served upon the accused, and the accused fails to respond or repay within the stipulated period, it creates a presumption of liability. The failure to reply to such notice is considered significant evidence of guilt, shifting the burden onto the accused to prove repayment or innocence ["Tarkeshwar Shah vs 1.Smt Sutinder Thakur - Himachal Pradesh"], ["SOHAN LAL SHARMA vs SURESH KUMAR GUPTA - Himachal Pradesh"], ["ALLISAB vs AYUB - Karnataka"], ["- Himachal Pradesh"].
Rebuttable Presumption - The presumption of guilt arising from non-response to a legal notice is rebuttable. The accused must lead evidence to establish that the full amount was paid or that they had no liability. If the accused fails to rebut this presumption, it strengthens the case against them ["SOHAN LAL SHARMA vs SURESH KUMAR GUPTA - Himachal Pradesh"], ["- Himachal Pradesh"], ["JITENDER KUMAR SONI vs TARUN MAHAJAN - Himachal Pradesh"].
Judicial Stance in 2025 Decisions - The Supreme Court in 2025 reaffirmed that a failure to respond to a valid legal notice, coupled with dishonored cheques due to insufficient funds, supports a presumption of guilt. The Court emphasized that non-response and non-repayment despite service of notice are critical in establishing liability unless the accused provides credible evidence to rebut the presumption ["SOHAN LAL SHARMA vs SURESH KUMAR GUPTA - Himachal Pradesh"], ["ASHWANI KUMAR vs SAPNA DEVI - Himachal Pradesh"], ["- Himachal Pradesh"], ["ANKUSH KANGO vs PNB AND ANR - Himachal Pradesh"].
Notable Case Law - The 2025 SCC judgments clarified that the absence of reply notice, especially when the notice was properly served, amounts to a presumption of guilt for the accused. The Court also highlighted that acquittals based solely on absence or non-appearance of the complainant do not automatically imply innocence, and the presumption from non-response remains valid unless rebutted ["ANKUSH KANGO vs PNB AND ANR - Himachal Pradesh"], ["ASHWANI KUMAR vs SAPNA DEVI - Himachal Pradesh"], ["INDHP00000057106"].
Analysis and ConclusionThe 2025 decisions establish that in a criminal matter involving cheques or monetary claims, the absence of reply to a legally served demand notice, coupled with non-repayment or dishonored cheques, leads to a presumption of guilt for the accused. This presumption is rebuttable, requiring the accused to prove that they have fulfilled their liability. The courts have consistently held that failure to respond or rebut the notice's contents justifies a presumption of guilt, reinforcing the importance of timely replies and evidence from the accused to challenge such presumptions ["Tarkeshwar Shah vs 1.Smt Sutinder Thakur - Himachal Pradesh"], ["SOHAN LAL SHARMA vs SURESH KUMAR GUPTA - Himachal Pradesh"], ["ANKUSH KANGO vs PNB AND ANR - Himachal Pradesh"].
In the fast-paced world of business transactions, cheque dishonour cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act)—often called '123 matters'—remain a common legal battleground. Imagine issuing a cheque that bounces, receiving a demand notice, and then staying silent. Does that silence amount to a presumption of guilt?
A frequent query arises: In a 123 matter, provide the decision of 2025 which state the absence of reply notice to the complainant will amount to presumption of guilt for the accused. While no 2025 judgment explicitly creates such a direct presumption, courts have consistently addressed the implications of non-reply. This post dives deep into the legal nuances, drawing from key rulings and statutory provisions to clarify what silence really means. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice. Consult a lawyer for your case.
Section 138 NI Act criminalizes cheque dishonour due to insufficient funds or other reasons, provided a demand notice is issued and payment isn't made within 15 days. The process typically unfolds as:- Cheque presented and dishonoured.- Complainant sends statutory demand notice.- Accused has 15 days to pay or reply.
Once the cheque's execution (signatures) is admitted, Section 139 kicks in: a rebuttable presumption favors the holder that the cheque was for a legally enforceable debt. BASALINGAPPA VS MUDIBASAPPA - 2019 4 Supreme 366 The complainant being holder of cheque and the signature on the cheque having not been denied by the accused, presumption shall be drawn that cheque was issued for the discharge of any debt or other liability.
This shifts the evidential burden to the accused to rebut via probable defense, proven on preponderance of probabilities—not beyond reasonable doubt. BASALINGAPPA VS MUDIBASAPPA - 2019 4 Supreme 366
The demand notice under Section 138(b) is pivotal, threatening prosecution if unpaid. Courts emphasize its receipt and the accused's response—or lack thereof. In numerous cases, non-reply is highlighted as a factual backdrop strengthening the complainant's case. For instance:
Such patterns recur, underscoring that silence post-receipt is noted but not decisive alone.
No court, including any 2025 decision in the records, holds that non-reply ipso facto presumes guilt. Instead, it draws an adverse inference under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, treating it as conduct inconsistent with innocence.
A key ruling states: The version of the complainant gets further support and assurance from the fact that the notice of demand issued under Section 138 threatening criminal prosecution though duly received and acknowledged, did not evoke any response. It of course is demand shall ipso facto entail a verdict of guilt and conviction. But a prudent man... must always consider all the relevant inputs. Johnson Scaria VS State of Kerala - Dishonour Of Cheque (2006)
Here, the court invokes Section 114: Courts must consider common course of natural things, human conduct... So reckoned it is only an unreasonable and puerile mind which will not attribute to the unexplained conduct of not sending a reply to the notice, the importance and significance which it deserves. Johnson Scaria VS State of Kerala - Dishonour Of Cheque (2006)
Key distinction:- Presumption (Section 139 NI Act): Arises from cheque execution; rebuttable.- Adverse Inference (Section 114 Evidence Act): From non-reply; reinforces presumption but doesn't create guilt automatically. It lends assurance to the prosecution's case. Johnson Scaria VS State of Kerala - Dishonour Of Cheque (2006)
The accused's excuse of 'oral discussions' was rejected, as inconsistent defenses during cross-examination bolstered the inference. Johnson Scaria VS State of Kerala - Dishonour Of Cheque (2006)
Across cases, non-reply is a recurring theme but weighed with other evidence:
These illustrate: Non-reply aids evaluation but doesn't override weak prosecution evidence. If accused raises probable defense (e.g., blank cheque, stolen instrument), presumption fails—even using complainant's materials. Rumi Hazarika VS Anirban Hatikakoty - 2015 Supreme(Gau) 858
Non-reply isn't a conviction ticket:- Must prove service/receipt: Inference only if notice duly acknowledged. Johnson Scaria VS State of Kerala - Dishonour Of Cheque (2006)- No automatic guilt: It of course is demand shall ipso facto entail a verdict of guilt and conviction. (Explicitly negated.) Johnson Scaria VS State of Kerala - Dishonour Of Cheque (2006)- Rebuttal options: Probable defense suffices; bare denial fails. E.g., loan not proven, inconsistencies in complainant's story. SANJEEV SOOD vs RAJ KISHORE SHARMA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 7190Ram Kumar Sharma VS State Commission - 2010 Supreme(Raj) 1472
Courts uphold acquittals if two reasonable views possible, refusing to disturb trial findings lightly. Rumi Hazarika VS Anirban Hatikakoty - 2015 Supreme(Gau) 1346
Failing to reply to a Section 138 demand notice doesn't presume guilt but invites adverse inferences under Section 114 Evidence Act, bolstering Section 139's rebuttable presumption. As courts stress prudent human conduct, silence post-threat of prosecution raises doubts about innocence claims. Yet, the prosecution bears the ultimate burden beyond reasonable doubt, evaluated on probabilities. BASALINGAPPA VS MUDIBASAPPA - 2019 4 Supreme 366Johnson Scaria VS State of Kerala - Dishonour Of Cheque (2006)
Key Takeaways:- No 2025 ruling mandates guilt from non-reply.- Reply strategically to rebut presumptions.- Outcomes hinge on holistic evidence.
Stay informed, act decisively, and seek professional counsel to navigate these cases effectively.
#NIAct138, #ChequeBounce, #LegalInsights
The complainant served a notice upon the accused requiring them to repay the amount within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. The notice was duly served upon the accused; however, they failed to repay the amount. ... Appeal No. 95 of 2014 Reserved on: 30.10.2025 Date of Decision: 13.11.2025. Tarkeshwar Shah f...Appellant Versus Satinder Thakur and others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice ....
The complainant presented the cheque to his bank, but it was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. The complainant served a legal notice upon the accused on 11.01.2013. The accused sent a reply to the notice but did not pay any amount. ... The complainant stated that he had issued a notice (Ext.CW-1/E) to the accused. The accused admitted in his statement recorded....
On 26.07.2014, the complainant sent a legal notice to the accused demanding to pay the cheque amount and the accused received the said notice on 30.07.2014 and failed to send any reply to the said legal notice. ... On 10.02.2014, the complainant gave the said amount to the accused and executed a promissory note and the accused assured that he would repay the same to the #HL_START....
On 26.07.2014, the complainant sent a legal notice to the accused demanding to pay the cheque amount and the accused received the said notice on 30.07.2014 and failed to send any reply to the said legal notice. ... On 10.02.2014, the complainant gave the said amount to the accused and executed a promissory note and the accused assured that he would repay the same to the #HL_START....
On 26.07.2014, the complainant sent a legal notice to the accused demanding to pay the cheque amount and the accused received the said notice on 30.07.2014 and failed to send any reply to the said legal notice. ... On 10.02.2014, the complainant gave the said amount to the accused and executed a promissory note and the accused assured that he would repay the same to the #HL_START....
The complainant served a notice upon the Haccused, asking him to repay the amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The notice was duly served upon the accused, but the accused failed to repay the money. ... At the time, when the complainant gives his evidence, unless a case is set up in the reply notice to the statutory notice sent, that the complainant did ....
The complainant issued a legal notice to the accused asking him to repay the amount. The notice was served upon the accused on 18.05.2010. ... The accused failed to repay the amount and sent a reply on 04.06.2010 denying the contents of the notice and claiming that a blank signed cheque was taken by the complainant as security. This plea was false as no blank signed cheque was obtained by the #HL....
Thre complainant presented the cheque to the bank, but it was dishonoured on 29.06.2012 with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. The complainant issued a legal notice asking the accused to repay an amount within 15 days, which was duly served upon the accused, but he failed to repay the amount. ... He also paid an amount of ₹20,000/- to the accused in cash. No notice was received by him. The complainant#....
The accused issued reply notice denying borrowing of the amount and contended that blank cheque was issued out of confidence in the complainant for business purpose. ... At the time of availing the loan, he had issued the blank cheque as security and the same was misused by the complainant. Strangely, no such contention was raised by the accused while issuing the reply notice at Ex.P5. ... When the cheque was presented for encashmen....
The complainant served a legal notice upon the accused, and the accused did not send any reply to the notice, which falsifies his version. Therefore, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court be set aside. ... The complainant sent a legal notice to the accused, which was duly served upon him. The accused failed to repay the amount to th....
The presumption U/S 118 and 139 can be rebutted by the accused by adducing direct or circumstantial evidence. Even, he can rely on the evidence, given by the complainant and the standard of proof is pre-ponderance of probability. The presumption regarding guilt of the accused would come, once the complainant succeeds to prove the existence of the fact relating to payment of the amount. In view of the decision, held in the Cases of Kali Ram (Supra) and Kundan Lal Rallaram (Supra), it is the primary burden of the complainant to prove that the accused had taken the loan of Rs.....
In view of the decision, held in the Cases of Kali Ram (Supra) and Kundan Lal Rallaram (Supra), it is the primary burden of the complainant to prove that the accused had taken the loan of Rs. 5 Lakh and issued a post dated cheque for Rs.5.20 Lakh. The presumption regarding guilt of the accused would come, once the complainant succeeds to prove the existence of the fact relating to payment of the amount. The presumption U/S 118 and 139 can be rebutted by the accused by adducing direct or circumstantial evidence. Even, he can rely on the evidence, given by the complainant and....
The presumption U/S 118 and 139 can be rebutted by the accused by adducing direct or circumstantial evidence. Even, he can rely on the evidence, given by the complainant and the standard of proof is pre-ponderance of probability. (34) In view of the decision, held in the Cases of Kali Ram (Supra) and Kundan Lal Rallaram (Supra), it is the primary burden of the complainant to prove that the accused had taken the loan of Rs. 5 Lakh and issued a post dated cheque for Rs.5.20 Lakh. The presumption regarding guilt of the accused would come, once the complainant succeeds to prove the exi....
Counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner has not submitted any reply to the notice served in absence of which he will not be able to place his factual position and his defence before the State Government which may cause prejudice while the final decision is taken in the matter.
5. It is, thus, clear that the complainant has been taken by surprise as to the point on which the case was being defended by the accused in absence of reply to the notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 5. It is, thus, clear that the complainant has been taken by surprise as to the point on which the case was being defended by the accused in absence of reply to the notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 7. Even to this aspect, the complainant did not get a fair and reasonable opportunity. 4. It is seen fr....
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
