{"id":258158,"date":"2021-12-06T16:00:27","date_gmt":"2021-12-06T10:30:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=258158"},"modified":"2021-12-24T11:05:10","modified_gmt":"2021-12-24T05:35:10","slug":"dishonour-of-cheque-6","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/06\/dishonour-of-cheque-6\/","title":{"rendered":"When does burden of proof shift to accused to rebut statutory presumption in cheque bounce cases under S. 138 NI Act? CMM Court considers"},"content":{"rendered":"

Court of XX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City: <\/strong>Bhola Pandit, XX Addl. CMM, convicted a person who presented a cheque to repay a loan but the same was dishonored due to insufficient funds<\/strong><\/span>.<\/p>\n

Instant complaint was filed under Section 200 of Code of Criminal procedure against the accused of the dishonour of cheque punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.<\/p>\n

Background<\/span><\/h4>\n

It was alleged that the complainant and accused were very well known to each other for more than 10 years. The accused had availed a hand loan of Rs 15,00,000 from the complainant for business and family maintenance by way of cash and agreed to repay the same within one year.<\/p>\n

Even after completion of the said period, the accused did not return the money as agreed upon. Accused had requested to wait another one year time for repayment of the said loan saying difficulty of business due to effect of demonetization of currency notes by the central government. After the lapse of agreeing another one time also, accused did not come forward to pay the said loan amount.<\/p>\n

After several demands and requests, towards discharge of his liability, the accused had issued a post-dated cheque. The said cheque was returned by the bank due to \u201cfunds insufficient\u201d.<\/p>\n

The notice sent to the first address was duly served and the second-mentioned address was evaded by the accused, hence returned with an endorsement \u201cUn Claimed\u201d.<\/p>\n

The complaint was filed within time and had sought to convict the accused by granting compensation under Section 357 of Code of Criminal Procedure double of the cheque amount.<\/p>\n

Points for Consideration<\/span><\/h4>\n
    \n
  1. Whether the complainant proves that, accused has issued a postdated cheque for Rs 15,00,000 towards discharge of his liability, which was returned unpaid on presentation and also not complied with the notice issued by the complainant and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act?<\/li>\n
  2. What Order?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Analysis, Law and Decision<\/span><\/h4>\n

    Court noted that inspite of service of demand notice, accused had issued an untenable reply to the said statutory notice.<\/p>\n

    To bring home the guilt of the accused, as per the verdicts of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank Assn. v. Union of India, <\/em>the sworn statement of the complainant had been recorded by way of examination-in-chief as PW 1.<\/p>\n

    Further, to disprove the case of the complainant and also to rebut the statutory presumptions under Section 139 of NI Act, the accused neither had entered the witness box nor had produced documentary evidence.<\/p>\n

    As per Section 118(a) and 139 of NI Act, it was very clear that, when the issuance of cheque drawn from the account of the drawer and also a signature on the cheque was admitted or undisputed, the statutory presumptions shall be drawn in favour of the complainant stating that, the accused had issued the disputed cheque towards the discharge of his legal debt and that the complainant was the due holder of the said cheque.<\/p>\n

    In the Supreme court decision of Rangappa v. Mohan, <\/em>(2010) 11 SCC 441<\/a>, it was held that,<\/p>\n

    \u201cOnce the cheque relates to the account of the accused and he accepts the same and also admits his signature on the cheque, then the initial presumption under Section 139 of NI Act as well as under section 118 of NI Act has to be raised in favour of the complainant. It is a mandatory presumption. But the accused is entitle to rebut the same on preponderance of probabilities.\u201d<\/em>\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

    Whether the present complaint would meet the mandatory provisions of section 138 of NI Act or not?<\/p>\n

    On perusal of the material documents and presentation of the complaint, it appeared that the present complaint was filed by complying with the provisions of Section 138(a) to (c) of NI Act.<\/p>\n

    The Bench added that the accused had been admitting his issuance of cheque and the signature therein. Therefore, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act were raised in favour of the complainant. Hence, now the burden was on the accused to rebut the statutory presumptions and also to establish his defense.<\/p>\n

    Accused ha utterly failed to bring on record any probable evidence to rebut the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) & 139 of NI Act.<\/p>\n

    Court opined that the accused had borrowed a hand loan of Rs 15,00,000 from him and towards the discharge of the said loan, the accused issued the cheque, and the said cheque was returned unpaid due to \u201cFunds Insufficient\u201d in the account of the accused.<\/p>\n

    Concluding the decision, it was held that the complainant had proved the guilt of the accused punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. [Ravi M.C. v. S.S Tools, CC No. 3906 of 2019<\/a>, decided on 3-12-2021]<\/p>\n

    \n

    Advocates before the Court:<\/strong><\/p>\n

    For the Complainant:<\/p>\n

    Sri. Ramesh C.H., Advocate<\/p>\n

    For the Accused:<\/p>\n

    Sro. N. Somashekar, Advocate<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Court of XX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City: Bhola Pandit, XX Addl. CMM, convicted a person who presented a cheque to <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":248968,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,4721],"tags":[31402,2862,29785,42834,23584,33580,21144,33383,47967],"class_list":["post-258158","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-district-court","tag-demand-notice","tag-dishonour_of_cheque","tag-law","tag-legal-news","tag-section-138-ni-act","tag-section-139-ni-act","tag-signature-on-cheque","tag-statutory-notice","tag-statutory-presumptions"],"yoast_head":"\nWhen does burden of proof shift to accused to rebut statutory presumption in cheque bounce cases under S. 138 NI Act? CMM Court considers | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Dishonour of Cheque\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/06\/dishonour-of-cheque-6\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"When does burden of proof shift to accused to rebut statutory presumption in cheque bounce cases under S. 138 NI Act? CMM Court considers\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Dishonour of Cheque\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/06\/dishonour-of-cheque-6\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-12-06T10:30:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-12-24T05:35:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/City-Civil-Court-Bengaluru.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/06\/dishonour-of-cheque-6\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/06\/dishonour-of-cheque-6\/\",\"name\":\"When does burden of proof shift to accused to rebut statutory presumption in cheque bounce cases under S. 138 NI Act? CMM Court considers | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/06\/dishonour-of-cheque-6\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/06\/dishonour-of-cheque-6\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/City-Civil-Court-Bengaluru.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-12-06T10:30:27+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-12-24T05:35:10+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"description\":\"Dishonour of Cheque\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/06\/dishonour-of-cheque-6\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/06\/dishonour-of-cheque-6\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/06\/dishonour-of-cheque-6\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/City-Civil-Court-Bengaluru.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/City-Civil-Court-Bengaluru.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/06\/dishonour-of-cheque-6\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"When does burden of proof shift to accused to rebut statutory presumption in cheque bounce cases under S. 138 NI Act? CMM Court considers\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"When does burden of proof shift to accused to rebut statutory presumption in cheque bounce cases under S. 138 NI Act? CMM Court considers | SCC Times","description":"Dishonour of Cheque","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/06\/dishonour-of-cheque-6\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"When does burden of proof shift to accused to rebut statutory presumption in cheque bounce cases under S. 138 NI Act? CMM Court considers","og_description":"Dishonour of Cheque","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/06\/dishonour-of-cheque-6\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2021-12-06T10:30:27+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-12-24T05:35:10+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/City-Civil-Court-Bengaluru.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/06\/dishonour-of-cheque-6\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/06\/dishonour-of-cheque-6\/","name":"When does burden of proof shift to accused to rebut statutory presumption in cheque bounce cases under S. 138 NI Act? CMM Court considers | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/06\/dishonour-of-cheque-6\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/06\/dishonour-of-cheque-6\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/City-Civil-Court-Bengaluru.jpg","datePublished":"2021-12-06T10:30:27+00:00","dateModified":"2021-12-24T05:35:10+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"description":"Dishonour of Cheque","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/06\/dishonour-of-cheque-6\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/06\/dishonour-of-cheque-6\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/06\/dishonour-of-cheque-6\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/City-Civil-Court-Bengaluru.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/City-Civil-Court-Bengaluru.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/06\/dishonour-of-cheque-6\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"When does burden of proof shift to accused to rebut statutory presumption in cheque bounce cases under S. 138 NI Act? CMM Court considers"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/City-Civil-Court-Bengaluru.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":258119,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/04\/account-closed-and-cheque-returned\/","url_meta":{"origin":258158,"position":0},"title":"“Account closed” and Cheque returned: Is it a reason sufficient for convicting a person under S. 138 NI Act? Read detailed decision of CMM Court, Bangalore","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"December 4, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Court of XX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City: In light of cheque being returned by the bank due to \u201cAccount Closed\u201d Bhola Pandit, XX Addl. C.M.M, convicted an accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 The present complaint was filed under Section 200 of the Code\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/City-Civil-Court-Bengaluru.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/City-Civil-Court-Bengaluru.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/City-Civil-Court-Bengaluru.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/City-Civil-Court-Bengaluru.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/City-Civil-Court-Bengaluru.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":266804,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/13\/law-on-liability-of-guarantor-dishonour-of-cheque-section-138-ni-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":258158,"position":1},"title":"Liability of Guarantor for Cheque Dishonour: Can lender enforce his right against either principal borrower or his guarantor? Dwarka Courts answers","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"May 13, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Dwarka Courts, Delhi: Rahul Jain, Metropolitan Magistrate, while addressing a matter regarding dishonour of cheque, held that mere assertion of non-receipt of legal notice cannot help the accused in escaping liability under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It was alleged in complaint that accused had approached the complainant to\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/Dwarka-Court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/Dwarka-Court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/Dwarka-Court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/Dwarka-Court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/Dwarka-Court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":255614,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/14\/law-on-dishonour-of-cheque\/","url_meta":{"origin":258158,"position":2},"title":"Law on Dishonour of Cheque | Loan given in cash, no documentary evidence available. Lender files a complaint under S. 138 NI Act: Read how \u2018presumption\u2019 under S. 118 (a) plays a role","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 14, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Patiala House Courts, New Delhi: Prayank Nayak, MM-01 acquitted the accused of offence under Section 138 (dishonour of cheque) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1885, holding that the accused successfully dislodged the statutory presumption. In the present matter, complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Patiala House Courts, Delhi","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/patialacourt.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/patialacourt.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/patialacourt.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/patialacourt.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/patialacourt.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":257091,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/15\/dishonour-of-cheques-2\/","url_meta":{"origin":258158,"position":3},"title":"Dishonour of Cheque | Not filling details in cheque, Non-filing of ITR by complainant, Handing over cheque as security, etc.: Delhi Court discards all defence, orders conviction under S. 138 NI Act \u00a0","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 15, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Saket Courts, Delhi: Swati Gupta, Metropolitan Magistrate (South) NI Act, convicted the accused for an offence under Section 138 (dishonour of cheque) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. While delivering the judgment, the Court reiterated the well-settled position of law and discarded various defence taken by the accused. Factual Matrix\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Saket Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/District-Court-Saket.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/District-Court-Saket.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/District-Court-Saket.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/District-Court-Saket.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/District-Court-Saket.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":255796,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/18\/dishonour-of-cheque-3\/","url_meta":{"origin":258158,"position":4},"title":"Mere denial is useless, Presumption under S. 138 NI Act can be rebutted only by leading cogent evidence: Court holds accused guilty where “payment stopped by drawer”","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 18, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Saket Courts, New Delhi: Swati Gupta, Metropolitan Magistrate reiterated what is expected of an accused to rebut the statutory presumption against him in cases of cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Brief facts Complainant and accused had entered into an agreement to sell the property\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Saket Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/District-Court-Saket.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/District-Court-Saket.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/District-Court-Saket.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/District-Court-Saket.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/District-Court-Saket.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":257575,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/23\/section-138-ni-act-9\/","url_meta":{"origin":258158,"position":5},"title":"If a cheque was issued in favour of complainant, would she still be required to prove loan transaction as she would have been in civil trial recovery? Court explains","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 23, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Dwarka Courts, New Delhi: Medha Arya, MM (NI Act-03), resolved the dispute pertaining to Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in light of the 4 conditions laid down under the said Section. Complainant was friends with one Lata Bhola for a number of years and the accused, son of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/Dwarka-Court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/Dwarka-Court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/Dwarka-Court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/Dwarka-Court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/Dwarka-Court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258158","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=258158"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258158\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/248968"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=258158"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=258158"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=258158"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}