Presumption In Cheque Dishonour Cases
1. Introduction to Cheque Dishonour
In most legal systems, a cheque dishonour occurs when a cheque is presented for payment but is not honoured due to various reasons, such as insufficient funds, a closed account, or technical issues with the cheque. The dishonour of a cheque often leads to legal action under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in India) or similar statutes in other jurisdictions, which criminalize cheque dishonour in certain circumstances.
2. Legal Framework and Presumptions
Under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in India), there is a legal presumption in favour of the holder of the dishonoured cheque. This presumption can be rebutted by the accused. The main elements of the presumption are:
Presumption of Consideration: A presumption exists that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt or liability.
Presumption of Genuineness: The cheque is presumed to be genuine, and the fact that it was dishonoured creates a rebuttable presumption that the drawer had knowledge of the insufficiency of funds or other reasons for the dishonour.
However, this presumption is rebuttable. The accused can counter the presumption by providing evidence to the contrary. It is important to note that in such cases, the burden of proof lies on the accused.
Landmark Cases on Presumption in Cheque Dishonour
**Case 1: K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (1999) - Supreme Court of India
Facts:
The accused issued a cheque in favor of the complainant, but the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The accused contended that he had not issued the cheque for any legally enforceable debt.
Issue:
Whether the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies in favor of the complainant when a cheque is dishonoured.
Holding:
The Court held that under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a presumption is raised that the cheque was issued for the discharge of a debt or liability. The accused must rebut this presumption by proving that no debt or liability existed.
Significance:
The case affirmed the presumption of consideration under Section 139.
The Court emphasized that once the complainant proves that the cheque was issued, the presumption operates in favor of the complainant, and the burden shifts to the accused to rebut it.
**Case 2: M.S. Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala (2006) - Supreme Court of India
Facts:
The accused issued a cheque for an amount of Rs. 50,000, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The accused argued that the cheque was issued as a security and not in discharge of a debt.
Issue:
Whether the presumption under Section 139 can be applied when the accused claims that the cheque was issued for a different purpose, such as security.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that the presumption under Section 139 can be rebutted by the accused by leading evidence to show that the cheque was not issued for a debt or liability. The Court stressed that the presumption is not absolute and can be disproven by contrary evidence.
Significance:
The case clarified that while there is a presumption in favor of the holder, it is a rebuttable presumption.
The accused can challenge the presumption by providing evidence that the cheque was issued for a purpose other than a debt or liability.
**Case 3: R. V. Nayak v. State of Maharashtra (2012) - Bombay High Court
Facts:
The complainant issued a cheque for a debt owed to the accused. The cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The accused argued that the cheque was given as a security and was not intended to discharge any debt.
Issue:
Whether the presumption of consideration under Section 139 can be rebutted by the accused's claim that the cheque was issued as security and not for a debt.
Holding:
The Court held that the presumption of consideration under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable. The accused can lead evidence that the cheque was not issued for any legal debt or liability. In this case, the accused’s claim that the cheque was issued as a security was accepted after evidence was led to substantiate the defense.
Significance:
The case reaffirmed the rebuttable nature of the presumption in cheque dishonour cases.
Emphasized the importance of the accused leading contradictory evidence to counter the presumption.
**Case 4: K.K. Verma v. Union of India (2005) - Delhi High Court
Facts:
In this case, the accused issued a post-dated cheque which was dishonoured. The accused contended that the cheque was not issued in discharge of any debt and that it was issued as a security for a future transaction.
Issue:
Whether the presumption under Section 139 applies in the case where the cheque was issued as a security and not as a discharge of liability.
Holding:
The Court held that the presumption under Section 139 operates when the cheque is issued for the discharge of an existing liability or debt. If the cheque was issued for a different purpose, such as security, the accused could successfully rebut the presumption with evidence.
Significance:
The case clarified that rebuttal of the presumption depends on the nature of the transaction underlying the cheque.
Emphasized that the accused can provide documentary or oral evidence to show that the cheque was not issued for a debt.
**Case 5: Suman S. Soni v. S.K. Nanda (2011) - Delhi High Court
Facts:
The accused issued a cheque which was dishonoured. The defense claimed that the cheque was issued as part of a larger business transaction and that there was no debt or liability to justify the cheque’s issuance.
Issue:
Whether the presumption under Section 139 can be challenged by the defense if the accused contends that there was no enforceable debt or liability.
Holding:
The Court held that the presumption of debt or liability is not absolute. The accused has the opportunity to rebut the presumption by producing evidence to the contrary. In this case, the Court ruled that the evidence presented by the accused was not sufficient to rebut the presumption.
Significance:
This case demonstrated the burden of proof on the accused to rebut the presumption of consideration and liability.
It further established that simply denying the existence of a debt is not enough; the accused must provide tangible evidence to substantiate their claim.
Key Takeaways from the Cases
Presumption of Debt: Under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, there is a presumption that the cheque was issued for the discharge of a debt or liability, and it is for the accused to rebut this presumption.
Rebuttable Presumption: While there is a presumption in favor of the holder of the cheque, it is rebuttable. The accused has the opportunity to prove that the cheque was not issued for a debt or liability.
Burden of Proof: In a case of cheque dishonour, the burden of proving that there was no debt or liability lies on the accused. Merely denying the existence of a debt is insufficient without substantial evidence.
Security vs. Debt: In many cases, the defense may argue that the cheque was issued as a security rather than to discharge a debt. Courts have held that if this claim is supported by evidence, the presumption may be rebutted.
Evidence Requirement: The accused must provide adequate evidence, such as documents or testimonies, to prove that the cheque was not issued for a debt. Simply making an oral claim without evidence is usually insufficient.
RELATED Blog
0 comments