Skip to main content

NI Act - Burden of proof on the drawer even for blank cheques

In CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.230-231 OF 2019 before the Supreme Court, Bir Singh vs Mukesh Kumar, a friendly loan was given to the respondent-accused by the appellant-complainant who is also an income-tax practitioner and the respondent-accused is his client. When the cheque issued by respondent-accused for repayment of the loan was returned by the bank due to insufficiency of funds for the second time even after assurances received from the respondent-accused, the appellant-complainant filed the criminal complaint. The Trial court convicted the respondent-accused and the Appellant Court upheld the trial court order. The respondent-accused filed a Criminal Revision Petition before the High Court which reversed the concurrent factual findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate court and acquitted the respondent of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, observing, inter alia, that there was fiduciary relationship between the appellant-complainant, an Income Tax practitioner, and the respondent-accused who was his client.

On appeal, the Supreme Court looked into the several objections raised by the respondent-accused :-
a) That a fiduciary relationship existed between the respondent-accused and the appellant-complainant
b) The cheque under consideration was a blank cheque issued for some other matter like tax payment
c) The blank cheque was post-dated.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court made the following observations:-

1) Firstly the High Court could not have re-analyse and re-interpret the reversed evidence on record, in its role as Revisional Court as there was no error in the facts of the matter as decided by the lower courts. The High Court mis-construed Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, which mandates that unless the contrary is proved, it is to be presumed that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138, for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability and the onus of proving that the cheque was not in discharge of any debt or other liability is on the accused drawer of the cheque.

2) The proposition of law which emerges from the previous judgments is that the onus to rebut the presumption under Section 139 that the cheque has been issued in discharge of a debt or liability is on the accused and the 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.

3) As per Sections 20, 87 and 139, of the Negotiable Instruments Act, makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of Section 138 would be attracted.

4) If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence.

5) The existence of a fiduciary relationship between the payee of a cheque and its drawer, would
not disentitle the payee to the benefit of the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of evidence of exercise of undue influence or coercion.

6) Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt.

7) The fact that the loan may not have been advanced by a cheque or demand draft or a receipt might not have been obtained would make no difference.

8) The subsequent filling in of an unfilled signed cheque is not an alteration. There was no change in the amount of the cheque, its date or the name of the payee.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more