Accused Must Rebut Presumption Under NI Act, Mere Claim Of 'Blank Security Cheque' Not Enough: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated that once the execution of a cheque is admitted, the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act operates in favour of the complainant, and a mere plea that the cheque was issued as a blank security instrument is insufficient to rebut such presumption.Justice Sumeet Goel said, "accused has miserably failed to raise any probable defence to rebut the presumption attached to the cheque in question being issued in discharge of legal liability under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner - accused, except raising the factual grounds, miserably failed to point out any jurisdictional error or perversity in the findings returned by both the learned Courts below. No material illegality or miscarriage of justice has been pointed out which may justify interference in the limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court."The case arose from a complaint filed by the respondent alleging that the accused had borrowed a total sum of ₹3,70,000 in two installments for medical expenses relating to his wife and newborn child. In discharge of the liability, the accused issued a cheque which was subsequently dishonoured due to “funds insufficient”.Despite issuance of a legal notice, the amount remained unpaid, leading to the initiation of proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act. The trial court convicted the accused, and the appellate court affirmed the conviction.The petitioner argued that the cheque in question was a blank signed security cheque misused by the complainant. It was further contended that the alleged loan was not supported by reliable evidence.There were material contradictions in the complainant's case, a settlement had been reached for ₹1,00,000, out of which ₹65,000 had already been paid;The agreement acknowledging liability was fabricated and not proved in accordance with law.Rejecting these arguments, the Court held that the petitioner had admitted his signatures on the cheque and the agreement, thereby triggering the statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act.The burden was on the accused to rebut this presumption with cogent evidence, which he failed to do. A bald assertion that the cheque was issued as security does not suffice, particularly when no explanation is offered as to how the cheque came into the complainant's possession, it added.The alleged settlement was not proved and could not be relied upon, especially when no such suggestion was put to the complainant during cross-examination.The Court also upheld the validity of the written agreement acknowledging liability, noting that the accused failed to lead any evidence to disprove its execution despite admitting his signatures.Emphasizing the limited scope of interference in revision, the Court held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed in the absence of perversity or jurisdictional error.Finding no merit in the petition, the Court dismissed the revision and upheld the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court.Title: Narender Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.Mr. P.S. Jammu, Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Luhani, Advocate andMs. Muskan Maver, Advocate for respondent No.2.Click here to read order

Accused Must Rebut Presumption Under NI Act, Mere Claim Of 'Blank Security Cheque' Not Enough: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

Accused Must Rebut Presumption Under NI Act, Mere Claim Of 'Blank Security Cheque' Not Enough: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers