Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
No Reply Notice Issued - Presumption of Guilt: Multiple decisions establish that when the accused does not issue a reply to the legal notice served by the complainant, it leads to a presumption of guilt under Section 138 of the NI Act. For instance, ["SRI M GANGANNA vs SRI RAMAMURTHY R - Karnataka"] states, Even earlier to that, the complainant has issued legal notice as per Ex.P.8 on 12.05.2016, which was served on accused and his wife. Admittedly, there is no reply to the said notice. Similarly, ["SMT VASANTHA vs MR MALLIKARJUNA K - Karnataka"] notes, The complainant by producing the documents and leading evidence in his behalf is successful in proving his contentions, implying that the absence of a reply by the accused supports the case against them.
Legal Notice Served but No Response: Courts consistently hold that if a legal notice is properly served and the accused fails to reply, it strengthens the presumption of liability. For example, ["SMT. SUNITHA V vs SRI H C RUDRANNA - Karnataka"] states, Notice was served on her. The accused issued untenable reply. Thereby, the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Similarly, ["Rashidmiyan Bhikhumiyan Malek VS State Of Gujarat - Gujarat"] emphasizes, It is further contended by the complainant that inspite of due service of aforesaid legal notice, no reply was given by the accused.
Pressumption of Guilt Due to Absence of Reply: The absence of a reply notice, especially after proper service, is often deemed sufficient to presume guilt and proceed with conviction. ["SMT VASANTHA vs MR MALLIKARJUNA K - Karnataka"] notes, Inspite of legal notice being served, the accused did not issue any reply to the notice nor she repaid the cheque amount, which supports presumption of guilt.
Rebuttal of Presumption: Some decisions recognize that if the accused claims no receipt of the notice or no reply was given, the presumption can be rebutted. However, courts generally favor the view that failure to reply when served constitutes an adverse inference. For example, ["M. Kulasekaran VS V. Radhakrishnan - Dishonour Of Cheque"] states, Had really the complainant issued such pre-litigation notice, naturally the accused should have swing into action by way of tarpedoing the said notice by issuing a reply notice. But he did not do so.
Case Law References Supporting the Principle: The decisions cite authoritative rulings such as ["SMT VASANTHA vs MR MALLIKARJUNA K - Karnataka"], referencing the Supreme Court in Kalamani Tex which emphasizes the importance of proper service and reply, and the principle that non-response can lead to presumption of guilt.
Analysis and Conclusion: Consistent jurisprudence across these cases indicates that when a legal notice under Section 138 NI Act is properly served but no reply is issued by the accused, courts tend to presume guilt and proceed with conviction. This is based on the legal inference that the accused's silence implies acknowledgment of the debt or liability. However, if the accused can prove non-receipt of notice or other valid defenses, the presumption may be rebutted. Overall, failure to reply to a legally served notice significantly influences the presumption of guilt in Section 138 cases.
In cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), the statutory demand notice plays a pivotal role. It gives the drawer 15 days to pay the cheque amount after dishonour. But what happens when the accused fails to reply to this notice? Courts have repeatedly held that such silence can lead to an adverse inference, strengthening the presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Section 139 NI Act and often tipping the scales toward guilt.
A common query from litigants is: Cite relevant decisions on Section 138 matters where a reply notice is not issued to the complainant leading to presumption of guilt. This blog post dives into landmark judgments, analyzes the legal framework, and integrates insights from additional cases to provide a comprehensive overview. Note: This is general information based on case law and not specific legal advice. Consult a lawyer for your situation.
Section 138 penalizes cheque dishonour due to insufficient funds or exceeding arrangement, provided it's for a legally enforceable debt. The proviso (b) requires a demand notice, and non-payment within 15 days triggers the offence. Key presumptions include:
Non-reply doesn't prove guilt outright but reinforces presumptions, shifting the effective burden to the accused. Kannan VS Andhra Cements Ltd. - Dishonour Of Cheque (2011)Uma Rani VS Rajesh Jain - 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 328Shriram Balaji VS State of U. P. - 2022 0 Supreme(All) 1430
The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized the importance of replying to the notice.
This landmark case clarified that non-reply, coupled with deemed service, supports conviction. The notice provides an opportunity to settle; silence indicates acceptance of liability. Uma Rani VS Rajesh Jain - 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 328
Reiterated deemed service via post. Non-reply post-deemed service defeats objections to service. Accused can pay post-summons, but silence undermines defence. Uma Rani VS Rajesh Jain - 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 328Shriram Balaji VS State of U. P. - 2022 0 Supreme(All) 1430Shiv Kumar Sharma VS State of U. P. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 555Bhim Singh, Son Of Sh. Himru Ram And Smt. Nagam Devi VS Tikmi Devi, W/o Sh. K. R. Thakur - 2022 0 Supreme(HP) 52
Essential for noticee to reply clarifying stance... silence equates to acceptance. Non-reply allows complainant to believe averments are undisputed. Uma Rani VS Rajesh Jain - 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 328
High Courts apply these principles, often convicting based on non-reply.
| Reference ID | Key Holding ||--------------|-------------|| Kannan VS Andhra Cements Ltd. - Dishonour Of Cheque (2011) | No reply to statutory notice gives rise to presumption of guilt. Conviction upheld for cement purchase liability. || Jayalakshmma VS Shashikala - 2020 0 Supreme(Kar) 1368 | Non-reply + failure to rebut = guilt; acquittal set aside, 6 months SI + compensation. || Spenser David VS Virjin Mary - 2010 0 Supreme(Mad) 1549 | Non-reply fails Section 139 rebuttal; Rs.2.5L compensation. || Johnson Scaria VS State of Kerala - Dishonour Of Cheque (2006) | Unexplained non-reply... supports complainant's version. Silence indicates guilt if misused. || Uma Rani VS Rajesh Jain - 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 328 | Deemed service + non-reply; cites SC cases, conviction restored. || K. Balu VS R. Ramesh - 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 2463 | Non-reply confirms guilt; Rs.20L compensation. |
Exceptions exist where notice service fails (e.g., wrong address), but proper service + non-reply typically leads to conviction. Deepak Lohiya, S/o Shri Chhitar Mal Lohiya vs Nirmala Devi Jain, W/o Shri Chhitar Mal Jain - 2025 0 Supreme(Raj) 1432
Further cases reinforce that non-reply weakens defences, especially without evidence.
In one matter, the court noted the accused's evasion of notice despite postmaster evidence, upholding service presumption and debt existence. The appellate acquittal was reversed for ignoring conduct. P. Pichai Muthu vs D.R. Premchander - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 69856P. PichaiMuthu Rep. By Power Agent Mr. P. Sivamuthu vs D.R. Premchander - 2025 Supreme(Mad) 5123
Contrastingly, where replies were issued denying liability (e.g., blank cheque as security), courts scrutinized consistency. But absent reply, like in Yavatmal District Mahesh Urban Credit Co-Op. Society Ltd. VS Narayanrao Ukandrao Paikrao, the accused did not bother to reply the demand notice... requirements of Section 138 were clearly established. No evidence overturned presumptions, leading to conviction.
In SRI M D MADEGOWDA vs SRI D R LAXMAN GOWDA, a reply denied borrowing, but evasive responses post-notice supported offence. Similarly, N. R. Lakshminarayanan, Son of Mr. N. S. Ramabhadracharya VS Lead Consultancy And Engineering Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. - 2023 Supreme(Kar) 906 held denial via reply constituted cause of action, but non-payment confirmed guilt.
Rarely, strong rebuttal elsewhere succeeds despite non-reply (minority view), as in Rajmohan VS Chandrika Shaji - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 379, but courts stress: prudent accused reply to lay defence foundation. M. Kulasekaran VS V. Radhakrishnan & Another - 2009 Supreme(Mad) 2298
Overwhelming precedent treats non-reply as a guilt strengthener. In cheque-as-security cases, non-reply + no rebuttal = liability. P. PichaiMuthu Rep. By Power Agent Mr. P. Sivamuthu vs D.R. Premchander - 2025 Supreme(Mad) 5123
Failure to reply to a Section 138 notice, after proper/deemed service, consistently draws adverse inference across courts, reinforcing Section 139 presumption and often leading to conviction. Supreme Court rulings like Rangappa and Alavi Haji mandate replies; silence signals accepted liability. Kannan VS Andhra Cements Ltd. - Dishonour Of Cheque (2011)Jayalakshmma VS Shashikala - 2020 0 Supreme(Kar) 1368Uma Rani VS Rajesh Jain - 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 328
Key Takeaways:- Always reply to statutory notice with probable defence.- Rebut presumptions with evidence, not silence.- Ensure notice service; challenge if flawed.- Non-reply critically weakens case but isn't sole proof—pair with robust evidence.
For cheque bounce matters, proactive response is key. This analysis draws from established case law; outcomes may vary by facts.
#Section138, #ChequeBounce, #NIACT
Accused denied issuance of notice by the complainant, but admitted that she has not issued any reply. However, she states that as security the cheque Ex.P.1 was issued by her. ... Legal notice was issued, which was served on accused. Inspite of legal notice being served, the accused did not issue any reply to the notice nor she repaid the cheque amount. ... The c....
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for not properly serving the statutory notice. The Respondent/Accused did not do so as the statutory notice was duly sent and the Complainant also examined P.W-2/Postmaster to show that the notice was duly served. ... In the cross-examination of the Complainant as P.W-1 it was suggested that the notice was not served on the Accused to which the Complainant#HL_....
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for not properly serving the statutory notice. The Respondent/Accused did not do so as the statutory notice was duly sent and the Complainant also examined P.W-2/Postmaster to show that the notice was duly served. ... In the cross-examination of the Complainant as P.W-1 it was suggested that the notice was not served on the Accused to which the Complainant#HL_....
Ex.P6 is the reply notice dated 04.08.2015 issued by the accused contending that he had not borrowed any amount from the complainant nor issued Ex.P.1 towards repayment of the same. ... The accused has not repaid the cheque amount but has given evasive reply, thereby he has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. ... Even after issuance of legal notice the accused has not#....
The accused have already made their intention very clear not to pay the cheque amounts and they have not paid the same till today. 45. It is also relevant to note that the legal notice was served on the accused on 02.12.2016. The reply notice as per Ex.P18 is dated 03.12.2016. ... Learned counsel submitted that after service of notice issued by the complainant on the accused, he acknowledged it by issuing the reply....
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. ... Therefore, the First Appellate Court formed....
The said notice was served on the accused and also on his wife. The accused has not issued any reply to the said notice. ... Even earlier to that, the complainant has issued legal notice as per Ex.P.8 on 12.05.2016, which was served on accused and his wife. Admittedly, there is no reply to the said notice. ... The accused could have issued reply notice wh....
Had really the complainant issued such pre-litigation notice, allegedly fraught with falsity, naturally the accused should have swing into action by way of tarpedoing the said notice by issuing a reply notice. But he did not do so. ... The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would cite a decision of this Court reported in M.A. Nachimuthu v. N. ... Indisputably, in view of the decision of this Court in Krish....
Ex.P.6 is the reply notice issued by the accused to the complainant, wherein the accused admitted borrowal of hand loan of Rs.10,00,000/-, Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.7,50,000/- and issuance of cheques ... Ex.P.3 is the legal notice got issued by the complainants to the accused. ... It is relevant to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The Hon'ble Apex Court in the - 18 - case of “KALAMANI TEX AND ANOTHER VS. P. ... The ....
Had really the complainant issued such pre-litigation notice, allegedly fraught with falsity, naturally the accused should have swing into action by way of tarpedoing the said notice by issuing a reply notice. But he did not do so. ... The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would cite a decision of this Court reported in M.A. Nachimuthu v. N. ... So far as the question of service of notice in terms of the ....
7. The fact that the complainant admitted in his crossexamination that the contents of the reply to the notice under Section 138 of the N.I. Act given by the accused (Ex.P/5) were correct is by itself sufficient to convince the Court that the whole set of allegations, laid by the complainant in his complaint and in his sworn testimony were unsubstantiated.
In its reply, OP alleged that cheque for USD 4600 was found forged when it was sent to the foreign bank who had issued the same, for encashment but it was returned as ‘forged’. 6. After filing the complainant, notice was issued to OP/appellant, who filed his reply denying all allegations. The OP therefore rightly debited the account of the complainant with the Indian Currency of Rs. 1,84,000/- even though the same has initially been credited.
The cheque was presented on 6.1.2005 for collection in Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank at Pallihadi and the same was dishonoured on the ground that insufficient fund. Thereafter, on 1.2.2005, the complainant issued a statutory notice to which the accused sent a reply disputing all the averments stated in the notice. Thereafter, the accused wanted to examine defence witnesses and he submitted a list of defence witnesses and filed a petition under Section 254(2), Cr.P.C. praying to the Court to issue summons to those witnesses.
The cheque was presented on 6.1.2005 for collection in Tamil Nadu Merchantile Bank at Pallihadi and the same was dishonoured on the ground that insufficient fund. Thereafter, on 1.2.2005, the complainant issued a statutory notice to which the accused sent a reply disputing all the averments stated in the notice. Thereafter, the accused wanted to examine defence witnesses and he submitted a list of defence witnesses and filed a petition under Section 254(2) of Cr.P.C praying to the Court to issue summons to those witnesses.
The amount remained unpaid despite notice dated 14.5.2007 issued within a period of thirty days from the date of intimation received from the Banker for non-payment. No satisfactory evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused to overturn the effect of statutory presumptions against him. That being so and furthermore when the accused did not bother to reply the demand notice sent from the complainant, the requirements of Section 138 of the N.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
