{"id":361734,"date":"2025-09-26T11:30:26","date_gmt":"2025-09-26T06:00:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=361734"},"modified":"2025-09-29T17:50:10","modified_gmt":"2025-09-29T12:20:10","slug":"madras-hc-xerox-copy-of-lost-cheque-admissible-under-s-65-evidence-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/madras-hc-xerox-copy-of-lost-cheque-admissible-under-s-65-evidence-act\/","title":{"rendered":"Xerox copy of lost cheque admissible as secondary evidence under S. 65 Evidence Act if original was verified: Madras High Court"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Madras High Court:<\/span> In the present case, the petitioner had filed a Criminal Revision Case under Sections 438<\/a> and 442<\/a> of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023<\/a> (‘BNSS’), challenging the order of the Judicial Magistrate I, Pudukottai contending that the Trial Court ought to have accepted the xerox copy of the original cheque as secondary evidence. A Single Judge Bench of Shamim Ahmed, J.<\/span>, while allowing the Criminal Revision Case, set aside the order and held that rejection of the xerox copy solely for lack of proof of loss, without adhering to Sections 63(2)<\/a>, 63(3)<\/a>, and 65<\/a> of the Evidence Act, 1872<\/a> (‘Evidence Act’), was unsustainable. The Court emphasised that the Trial Court, having accepted the original cheque and made an endorsement, ought to have admitted the xerox copy, but its failure to do so, resulted in a miscarriage of justice.<\/p>\n

Background:<\/h3>\n

The respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs 5,50,000 from the petitioner on 01-02-2014 and issued a cheque drawn on ICICI Bank, Virachilai Branch, Pudukottai, as security for the loan. When the cheque was presented for encashment, it was returned with the endorsement “Funds Insufficient.” The petitioner then issued a legal notice on 14-06-2014 demanding repayment, but the notice was returned as refused. Consequently, the petitioner initiated proceedings under Sections 138<\/a> and 147<\/a> of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881<\/a> before the Judicial Magistrate I, Pudukottai, seeking repayment and penal action.<\/p>\n

During trial, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 63(a)<\/a> of the Evidence Act<\/a> to admit a xerox copy of the cheque as secondary evidence, stating that the original had been misplaced by his erstwhile Advocate. The Trial Court dismissed the petition, holding that there was no evidence to support the claim that the original cheque was lost by the Advocate. The petitioner then filed a Criminal Revision Case challenging this order.<\/p>\n

In response, the respondent submitted that the petitioner’s sworn statement had been recorded back in 2014, and the petition to admit secondary evidence was filed only after a lapse of 10 years. The respondent argued that the petitioner failed to examine the previous counsel or produce any supporting documents to substantiate the claim of loss. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly rejected the petition.<\/p>\n

The petitioner contended that the original cheque had been produced at the time of filing the complaint and was returned by the Trial Court after recording the sworn statement, with an endorsement to that effect. He argued that since the Trial Court had verified the original cheque and retained xerox copies, the xerox copy should be accepted as secondary evidence under Sections 63(2)<\/a> and 65<\/a> of the Evidence Act<\/a>. He further claimed that refusal to admit the xerox copy would result in significant monetary loss.<\/p>\n

Analysis and Decision:<\/h3>\n

The Court observed that the general principle was that if the original document existed and was available, it had to be produced because it was the best evidence. However, if the original was lost, destroyed, detained by the opponent or a third person, or physically irrecoverable, secondary evidence was admissible. The Court noted that the reading of the proviso to Section 65<\/a> of the Evidence Act<\/a> made it clear that the provision had been enacted to safeguard the interest of a person unable to produce the original. Thus, secondary evidence relating to a document could be given.<\/p>\n

The Court reiterated that, as per Sections 63(2)<\/a> and 63(3)<\/a> of the Evidence Act<\/a>, secondary evidence included copies made from the original by mechanical process ensuring accuracy, and copies made from or compared with the original. The Court examined the order and the sworn statement of the petitioner recorded on 15-07-2014 and found that the Trial Court had verified the original cheque, retained the xerox copy, and returned the original to the Petitioner with an endorsement. Thus, the provisions of Sections 63(2) and (3)<\/a> of the Evidence Act<\/a> had been satisfied.<\/p>\n

The Court noted that the petitioner had produced the original cheque at the time of filing the complaint and that the Trial Court had acknowledged its verification. The xerox copy retained by the Trial Court was therefore admissible as secondary evidence. The Trial Court, having accepted the original cheque and made an endorsement, ought to have allowed the petition to admit the xerox copy, and its failure to do so resulted in a miscarriage of justice.<\/p>\n

The Court found that the order rejecting the xerox copy solely on the ground that there was no evidence to prove the cheque was lost, without adhering to Sections 63(2)<\/a>, 63(3)<\/a>, and 65<\/a> of the Evidence Act<\/a>, could not be sustained and required interference.<\/p>\n

The Court, therefore, allowed the Criminal Revision Case and set aside the order dated 15-04-2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate I, Pudukottai. The Court further directed the Judicial Magistrate I to receive the xerox copy of the original cheque in question as secondary evidence, expedite the trial, and conclude the same in accordance with law.<\/p>\n

[Mohammed Iqbal v. S. Manonmanian, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 6266<\/a>, decided on 16-09-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

For the Petitioner:<\/span> A. Balaji<\/p>\n

For the Respondent:<\/span> S. Prabha, D. Ramesh Kumar<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“If the original document is lost or destroyed, detained by the opponent, or third person, who does not produce it before the Court or physically irrecoverable, the secondary evidence is admissible”.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":361744,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[3029,89875,72616,2567,89879,89878,89876,3120,23584,39876,89874,35323,89877],"class_list":["post-361734","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-cheque_bounce","tag-document-admissibility","tag-justice-shamim-ahmed","tag-Madras_High_Court","tag-misplaced-cheque","tag-original-verified","tag-proof-of-loss","tag-secondary_evidence","tag-section-138-ni-act","tag-section-147-ni-act","tag-section-63-evidence-act","tag-section-65-evidence-act","tag-xerox-admissibility"],"yoast_head":"\nMad HC: Xerox copy of lost cheque admissible as secondary evidence | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Madras High Court held that xerox copy of a lost cheque is admissible as secondary evidence under Section 65 Evidence Act, when original had been previously verified and endorsed by Trial Court.\" \/>\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\/2025\/09\/26\/madras-hc-xerox-copy-of-lost-cheque-admissible-under-s-65-evidence-act\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Xerox copy of lost cheque admissible as secondary evidence under S. 65 Evidence Act if original was verified: Madras High Court\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Madras High Court held that xerox copy of a lost cheque is admissible as secondary evidence under Section 65 Evidence Act, when original had been previously verified and endorsed by Trial Court.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/madras-hc-xerox-copy-of-lost-cheque-admissible-under-s-65-evidence-act\/\" \/>\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=\"2025-09-26T06:00:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-09-29T12:20:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Xerox-copy-of-lost-cheque-admissible-as-secondary-evidence.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Xerox copy of lost cheque admissible as secondary evidence under S. 65 Evidence Act if original was verified: Madras High Court\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\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\/2025\/09\/26\/madras-hc-xerox-copy-of-lost-cheque-admissible-under-s-65-evidence-act\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/madras-hc-xerox-copy-of-lost-cheque-admissible-under-s-65-evidence-act\/\",\"name\":\"Mad HC: Xerox copy of lost cheque admissible as secondary evidence | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/madras-hc-xerox-copy-of-lost-cheque-admissible-under-s-65-evidence-act\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/madras-hc-xerox-copy-of-lost-cheque-admissible-under-s-65-evidence-act\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Xerox-copy-of-lost-cheque-admissible-as-secondary-evidence.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-09-26T06:00:26+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-09-29T12:20:10+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Madras High Court held that xerox copy of a lost cheque is admissible as secondary evidence under Section 65 Evidence Act, when original had been previously verified and endorsed by Trial Court.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/madras-hc-xerox-copy-of-lost-cheque-admissible-under-s-65-evidence-act\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/madras-hc-xerox-copy-of-lost-cheque-admissible-under-s-65-evidence-act\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/madras-hc-xerox-copy-of-lost-cheque-admissible-under-s-65-evidence-act\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Xerox-copy-of-lost-cheque-admissible-as-secondary-evidence.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Xerox-copy-of-lost-cheque-admissible-as-secondary-evidence.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Xerox copy of lost cheque admissible as secondary evidence\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/madras-hc-xerox-copy-of-lost-cheque-admissible-under-s-65-evidence-act\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Xerox copy of lost cheque admissible as secondary evidence under S. 65 Evidence Act if original was verified: Madras High Court\"}]},{\"@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\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mad HC: Xerox copy of lost cheque admissible as secondary evidence | SCC Times","description":"Madras High Court held that xerox copy of a lost cheque is admissible as secondary evidence under Section 65 Evidence Act, when original had been previously verified and endorsed by Trial Court.","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\/2025\/09\/26\/madras-hc-xerox-copy-of-lost-cheque-admissible-under-s-65-evidence-act\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Xerox copy of lost cheque admissible as secondary evidence under S. 65 Evidence Act if original was verified: Madras High Court","og_description":"Madras High Court held that xerox copy of a lost cheque is admissible as secondary evidence under Section 65 Evidence Act, when original had been previously verified and endorsed by Trial Court.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/madras-hc-xerox-copy-of-lost-cheque-admissible-under-s-65-evidence-act\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-09-26T06:00:26+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-09-29T12:20:10+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Xerox-copy-of-lost-cheque-admissible-as-secondary-evidence.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Xerox copy of lost cheque admissible as secondary evidence under S. 65 Evidence Act if original was verified: Madras High Court","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/madras-hc-xerox-copy-of-lost-cheque-admissible-under-s-65-evidence-act\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/madras-hc-xerox-copy-of-lost-cheque-admissible-under-s-65-evidence-act\/","name":"Mad HC: Xerox copy of lost cheque admissible as secondary evidence | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/madras-hc-xerox-copy-of-lost-cheque-admissible-under-s-65-evidence-act\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/madras-hc-xerox-copy-of-lost-cheque-admissible-under-s-65-evidence-act\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Xerox-copy-of-lost-cheque-admissible-as-secondary-evidence.webp","datePublished":"2025-09-26T06:00:26+00:00","dateModified":"2025-09-29T12:20:10+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Madras High Court held that xerox copy of a lost cheque is admissible as secondary evidence under Section 65 Evidence Act, when original had been previously verified and endorsed by Trial Court.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/madras-hc-xerox-copy-of-lost-cheque-admissible-under-s-65-evidence-act\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/madras-hc-xerox-copy-of-lost-cheque-admissible-under-s-65-evidence-act\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/madras-hc-xerox-copy-of-lost-cheque-admissible-under-s-65-evidence-act\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Xerox-copy-of-lost-cheque-admissible-as-secondary-evidence.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Xerox-copy-of-lost-cheque-admissible-as-secondary-evidence.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Xerox copy of lost cheque admissible as secondary evidence"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/madras-hc-xerox-copy-of-lost-cheque-admissible-under-s-65-evidence-act\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Xerox copy of lost cheque admissible as secondary evidence under S. 65 Evidence Act if original was verified: Madras High Court"}]},{"@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\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Xerox-copy-of-lost-cheque-admissible-as-secondary-evidence.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":377731,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/09\/mad-hc-flags-misuse-of-pocso-act-in-teenage-relationships\/","url_meta":{"origin":361734,"position":0},"title":"\u201cYoung boys bear consequences\u201d: Madras HC flags misuse of POCSO in teenage relationships; Calls for awareness campaigns","author":"Soumya Yadav","date":"March 9, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"The Madras High Court observed that cases involving consensual adolescent relationships often result in the young boy facing criminal consequences due to parental differences.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"misuse of POCSO","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/misuse-of-POCSO.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/misuse-of-POCSO.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/misuse-of-POCSO.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/misuse-of-POCSO.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":307526,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/21\/even-voluntarily-signed-blank-cheque-leaf-attract-presumption-under-section-139-of-ni-act-kerala-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":361734,"position":1},"title":"Even a voluntarily signed blank cheque leaf would attract presumption under section 139 of NI Act: Kerala High Court","author":"Ridhi","date":"November 21, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Kerala High Court stated that the petitioner failed to adduce any cogent evidence to prove that the cheque in question was not aimed at discharging any legally enforceable debt.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"presumption under section 139 of NI Act","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/presumption-under-section-139-of-NI-Act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/presumption-under-section-139-of-NI-Act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/presumption-under-section-139-of-NI-Act.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/presumption-under-section-139-of-NI-Act.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":312627,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/01\/supreme-court-rejection-of-application-for-handwriting-expert-opinion-in-cheque-dishonour-case-section-138-ni-act-legal-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":361734,"position":2},"title":"When can an application for Handwriting Expert\u2019s Opinion in Cheque Dishonour Case be rejected? Supreme Court explains","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"February 1, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether the appellant Court was right in rejecting the application of the accused seeking opinion of the handwriting expert in Cheque Dishonour case.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Cheque Dishonour","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Cheque-Dishonour.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Cheque-Dishonour.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Cheque-Dishonour.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Cheque-Dishonour.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":196495,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/05\/29\/convict-charged-under-s-138-ni-act-1881-acquitted-in-light-of-no-evidence\/","url_meta":{"origin":361734,"position":3},"title":"Accused charged under Section 138 NI Act, 1881, acquitted in light of \u201cno evidence\u201d","author":"Saba","date":"May 29, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Madras High Court: In a Single Judge Bench decision comprising of P. Kalaiyarasan, J., accused was acquitted of the charges under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, confirming the decision of the first appellate court. The brief facts of the case states that the complainant\/ appellant had given an\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":309240,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/14\/calcutta-high-court-affirms-conviction-under-section-138-of-ni-act-scc-blog-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":361734,"position":4},"title":"Calcutta High Court affirms conviction under Section 138 of NI Act; upholds Lower Courts\u2019 findings on Part Payment Evidence","author":"Ritu","date":"December 14, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Calcutta High Court upheld the lower courts\u2019 conclusion regarding the unreliability of Exhibit A and Exhibit B as the petitioners\u2019 defense did not raise a reasonable doubt.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"calcutta high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":308464,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/05\/section35-stamp-act-insufficiently-stamped-documents-cannot-prohibited-admission-not-chargeable-with-stamp-duty-supreme-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":361734,"position":5},"title":"[Section 35 Stamp Act] Insufficiently stamped documents cannot be prohibited from admission in evidence, if not chargeable with stamp duty: Supreme Court","author":"Apoorva","date":"December 5, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe object of the Stamp Act is to collect proper stamp duty on an instrument or conveyance on which such stamp duty is payable. Section 35 is a provision to cater for the instruments not being properly stamped and, as such, not being admissible in evidence\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Section 35 Stamp Act","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/Section-35-Stamp-Act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/Section-35-Stamp-Act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/Section-35-Stamp-Act.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/Section-35-Stamp-Act.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/361734","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\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=361734"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/361734\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/361744"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=361734"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=361734"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=361734"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}