Handwriting expert – Evidence of a hand-writing expert on whether the respondent had filled in the details in the cheque would be immaterial to determining the purpose for which the cheque was handed over -- Presumption which arises on the signing of the cheque cannot be rebutted merely by the report of a hand-writing expert.

(SC) Decided on: 16.08.2022

Initial presumption is in favour of holder of the cheque in view of Section 139 of the Act, however, the same is rebuttable -- It is permissible for the accused to rebut the same on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.02.2020

Presumption of – Rebuttal of – Law summarised in following manner:- (i) Once the execution of cheque is admitted Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability. (ii) The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities. (iii) To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely. (iv) That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box in support of his defence, Section 139 imposed an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden. (v) It is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box to support his defence.

(SC) Decided on: 09.04.2019

Cheque bounce case -- Creation of doubt is not sufficient -- Trial Court proceeded to pass the order of acquittal on the mere ground of 'creation of doubt' -- In the scheme of the NI Act, mere creation of doubt is not sufficient.

(SC) Decided on: 15.03.2019

Cheque bounce case -- Probable defence -- On the aspects relating to preponderance of probabilities, the accused has to bring on record such facts and such circumstances which may lead the Court to conclude either that the consideration did not exist or that its non-existence was so probable that a prudent man would, under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that the consideration did not exist.

(SC) Decided on: 15.03.2019

Cheque bounce case -- Signature of cheque not denied -- It is required to be presumed that the cheques in question were drawn for consideration and the holder of the cheques i.e., the complainant received the same in discharge of an existing debt -- Onus, therefore, shifts on the accused-appellant to establish a probable defence so as to rebut such a presumption.

(SC) Decided on: 15.03.2019

Onus of proof -- Payee may fill up the amount and other particulars, this in itself would not invalidate the cheque -- Onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence -- Subsequent filling in of an unfilled signed cheque is not an alteration.

(SC) Decided on: 06.02.2019

Cheque bounce case -- Onus to rebut the presumption u/s 139 that the cheque has been issued in discharge of a debt or liability is on the accused -- Fact that the cheque might be post-dated does not absolve the drawer of a cheque of the penal consequences of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(SC) Decided on: 06.02.2019

Cheque bounce case -- Legally enforceable liability – Standard of proof for rebuttal of the presumption u/s 139 of the Act is guided by a preponderance of probabilities.

(SC) Decided on: 18.01.2019

Cheque bounce case -- Loan of Rs.15 lacs -- Legal enforceable liability – Entire amount alleged to have been paid without obtaining a receipt or document evidencing the payment of the amount – Complainant failed to establish the source of funds -- Nothing was stated by the complainant in regard to the fate of the earlier two cheques which were allegedly issued by the accused -- Non-disclosure of the facts pertaining to the earlier two cheques, and the steps, if any, taken for recovery was again a material consideration which indicated that there was a doubt in regard to the transaction – Presumption stands rebutted -- Order of acquittal passed by the first appellate court was justified.

(SC) Decided on: 18.01.2019

Loan of Rs.3 lacs – No document case – No date, month and year has been mentioned in the complainant as to when liability arose -- No document to show the loan transaction -- No receipt or security document was got executed while lending a huge amount of Rs.3 lakhs to the accused – Complainant is also doing business of shuttering and might be maintaining account books but he has also not produced any account books to show this loan transaction -- Complainant himself has stated that he could not tell exact date of advancement of loan of Rs.3 lakhs but stated in cross-examination that it was in the month of October 2012 – Presumption u/s 139 rebutted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.11.2018

Cheque bounce case -- Loan of Rs.8 lacs – In the complaint, it has been simply stated that the loan of Rs.8 lakhs was advanced to the accused in the month of March 2015 -- No specific date has been mentioned -- No other particulars have been given -- No security document had been obtained from the accused -- Complainant had also not taken any receipt of the loan -- There is no document on record to show the loan transaction -- There is no date as to when the loan was demanded back -- In the cross-examination, the complainant stated that he does not know accused and his family personally he knows them through brother-in-law of the accused -- Complainant admits that a sale deed was executed in his favour by the mother of the accused and further three cases were withdrawn by him -- All this evidence supports the defence version raised by the accused -- Presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act has been rebutted by the accused by raising probable defence -- Leave to file appeal dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.11.2018

Cheque bounce case -- One more complaint pending – Effect of – Complaint for dishonour of the cheque already filed in November 2011 – It is not explained, why again amount of Rs.2 lakhs were lent in June 2012 and that too without any document -- No ordinary person will do this -- Presumption has been rebutted

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.11.2018

Document expert -- Cheque has not been issued by the accused nor it was from his account -- Document Expert, has been examined to show that cheque- Ex.C2 was not signed by the accused -- No expert, in rebuttal, has been examined by the complainant --- Therefore, case of the complainant qua the cheque-Ex.C2 is doubtful -- Otherwise also, as this cheque was not from the account of the drawer, therefore, one of the necessary ingredient also goes -- Accused-respondent has been rightly acquitted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.09.2018

Cheque bounce case -- Probable defence -- Presumption u/s 139 arises when the cheque is in favour of holder of the cheque which was issued by the accused but the accused can rebut the presumption by raising probable defence.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.09.2018

Cheque amount more than liability – All the documents of the complainant pertain to alleged transactions of the accused, remaining amount of receipts comes to Rs.1,73,179/- only, which is less than the cheque amount -- Complainant has given legal notice to pay an amount of Rs.2,36,290/- qua which there was no liability outstanding against the accused – Trial Court held presumption has been duly rebutted, the cheque amount was not due and legal notice is of more amount than actually payable -- Accused-respondent has been rightly acquitted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.09.2018

Cheque bounce case -- No such account -- Cheque was dishonoured with the remarks 'no such account' on 09.02.2010 -- When there was no account at the time of issuance of cheque, then where is the question of issuing cheque by the accused to the complainant -- Defence raised by the accused is probable one, which is supported and corroborated by defence evidence and presumption has duly been rebutted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.09.2018

Cheque bounce case -- Probable defence -- Presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted by raising probable defence.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.09.2018

Legally enforceable liability – No document to show the loan transaction -- No particulars at which place and in whose presence the amount was given; whether it was given in cash or through cheque -- Nothing on record as to when the demand was raised; whether any security document was obtained -- Father of the accused filed a written complaint against the complainant to take action for breaking the glass of the car etc. -- When the relations between complainant and accused families were strained and the complaint was filed against the complainant and that was pending, it is improbable that the complainant will give a loan of Rs.3,63,000/- to the accused without even getting any receipt or security document -- Presumption u/s 139 of the NI Act can be rebutted by raising probable defence and the accused had raised a probable defence and the presumption was rebutted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.08.2018

Cheque bounce case -- Legal enforceable liability – Complainant proved the issuance of cheque which contained signatures of the accused and on presentation of the cheque, the cheque was returned with endorsement “insufficient funds” -- Bank official-witnesses proved that the cheque was not returned on the ground that it did not contain signatures of the accused rather it was returned due to insufficient funds – Trial court as well as the Appellate Court found that cheque contained the signatures of the accused – Defence that cheque was stolen complainant – No evidence led by accused -- Defence taken that cheque was stolen rejected by the two courts below – No basis for the High court coming to the conclusion that the accused has been successful in creating doubt in the mind of the Court with regard to the existence of the debt or liability.

(SC) Decided on: 02.07.2018

Cheque bounce case -- Presumption u/s 139 can be rebutted by the accused by raising probable defence -- Giving no particulars of the loan amount, as to when it was advanced nor there being any document to support the loan transaction, corroborates the version that the accused has not borrowed the amount – Furthermore, the complainant in the evidence has stated that he himself borrowed the amount on interest @ 3 to 5% -- Defence of the accused is that he has given this cheque to son in 2008 -- Before issuing legal notice to the present accused, the complainant had issued legal notice to son of the accused – Presumption u/s 139 of the Act has been duly rebutted.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 19.09.2017

Cheque bounce case -- Rebuttal of Presumption of legal enforceable liability – Complainant has not produced any document on record to show the loan transaction -- Neither income tax return nor any account books have been produced to show the transaction -- Agreement has not been proved on record as per law, but the oral statements support and corroborate the defence version -- Cheque is signed in Punjabi and filled by some other person of complainant side -- By raising probable defence, which is supported and corroborated by the cross-examination of the complainant's witnesses and by the defence witnesses, the presumption has been duly rebutted by the accused.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.05.2017

Accused has to raise probable defence, which is to be supported and corroborated by evidence to rebut the presumption u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act -- Nothing on the record to show that three blank signed cheques have been given to the complainant by the accused for purchase of three wheeler when the complainant is not a financier nor there is any circumstance that complainant is a close relative or his another close friend was dealing with selling of three-wheeler – Held, defence raised by the accused is not supported and corroborated by any other evidence.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.03.2017

Capacity to pay – Presumption u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted even from the case of the complainant -- Complainant was a student till 2005 -- Nothing has been shown from where he was earning and advanced such an huge amount of Rs.2,80,000/- -- Capacity to lend such an huge amount has also not been shown by leading cogent evidence -- Complainant stated in his evidence that he borrowed some amount from his relative but none of the relative has been examined to prove this fact -- Court below found that presumption u/s 139 has been rebutted -- Held, in no way, the judgment can be held as perverse or against the evidence – No ground made out for grant leave to appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.03.2017

Cheque bounce case -- Rebuttal of presumption of discharge of whole or in part liability or any debt – -- Section 139 of the Act raises a presumption in favour of the holder of cheque to presume that he had received the cheque in discharge of whole or in part liability or any debt -- Presumption is rebuttable one, it was the convict who was at liberty to have established it otherwise.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.06.2016

Acquittal of accused -- Leave to appeal -- In the reply to legal notice, the accused has specifically mentioned that he had borrowed an amount of Rs.10,000/- from complainant and not Rs.4 lacs and the cheque was handed over to the complainant as security cheque – Nothing in the complaint or in the evidence as to on which date and in which month and year, what amount was given to the accused as loan -- It was necessary, specifically, when the accused is alleging that he has taken loan of Rs.10,000/- only -- One pen has been used for signing the cheque, other pen has been used for putting the date on the cheque and third pen has been used for filling the amount in words as well as in figure -- No cogent evidence on the record to show as to why a huge amount of Rs.4 lacs was given without getting any receipt or getting executed any security document i.e. pronote etc. from the accused -- Nothing on the record to show that from where Rs.4 lacs was withdrawn and paid to the accused – Presumption u/s 139 stand rebutted – Order of acquittal passed by the Ld. Trial Court upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.03.2016

Cheque bounce case -- Rebuttal of presumption of Legally enforceable debt – Cheques issued against alleged loss/damages -- Complainant failed to prove that he suffered any loss on account of alleged late supply of the machinery and was legally entitled to claim any damages from accused -- Even late supply of the machinery is not proved -- Therefore, accused has been successful in rebutting the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act to prove that there was 'no legally enforceable debt', for which the cheques are stated to have been issued -- Disputed claim of damages, which are not determined by any authority cannot be called debt or legally recoverable debt – No offence u/s 138 of the Act – Accused acquitted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.03.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Rebuttal of Presumption of Legal enforceable liability – No averment in the complaint to show when the loan was given by the complainant to the accused, in whose presence the loan amount was given and at which place – No evidence on the record that what amount has been given as loan and whether any interest etc. was to be paid or not -- No document on the record to show the liability and capacity of the complainant to lend such a huge amount -- No evidence on record that such a huge amount was withdrawn from the bank -- Further, this loan amount is not paid through negotiable instrument, as per provisions of the Income-Tax Act, such a huge amount cannot be paid in cash – Held, it is for the complainant to show that the cheque was issued for legally enforceable debt -- Presumption u/s 139 of the NI Act has been rebutted from the evidence of the complainant itself -- Reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution case and the Courts below have ignored all these facts and convicted the accused/petitioner -- Petitioner is acquitted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.01.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Rebuttal of Presumption of legal enforceable liability – Accused had clearly come up with the defence that the complainant had got his signatures on the blank cheques and other papers but no loan amount was disbursed to him -- Therefore, it was mandatory for the complainant to produce the record to show the liability and the fact that loan was given of this amount, on this date and how many installments the accused had paid and what amount remains due payable regarding which the cheque was issued -- In the absence of this evidence, the accused has rebutted the presumption that cheque is not issued for legally enforceable debt.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.01.2015