A dishonor of cheque carries a statutory presumption of consideration. The holder of cheque in due course is required to prove that the cheque was issued by the accused and that when the same presented, it was not honoured. Since there is a statutory presumption of consideration, the burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued not for any debt or other liability. There is the mandate of presumption of consideration in terms of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The onus shifts to the accused on proof of issuance of cheque to rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued not for discharge of any debt or liability in terms of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Uttam Ram v. Devinder Singh Hudan, (2019) 10 SCC 287.
Tag Archives: holder in due course
Proviso to Section 138 is all important and stipulates three distinct conditions precedent, which must be satisfied before the dishonor of a cheque can constitute and offence and become punishable. The first condition is that the cheque ought to have been presented to the Bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier. The second condition is that the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, ought to make a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid. The third condition is that the drawer of such a cheque should have failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee or as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. It is only upon the satisfaction of all the three conditions mentioned above and enumerated under the proviso to Section 138 as clauses (a), (b) and (c) thereof that an offence under Section 138 can be said to have been committed by the person issuing the cheque. Virendra Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., 2016 (96) ACC 729.
A bare perusal of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act shows that to constitute an offence thereunder, following ingredients must be satisfied:
(a) A person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him in a bank.
(b) It must be for payment of certain amount of money to any person out of his account.
(c) The cheque should have been drawn for discharge of any debt or any liability in whole or in part.
(d) The cheque has been presented to Bank within a period of six months from the date on which it was drawn or within a period of it’s validity, whichever is earlier.
(e) The cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement with the bank.
(f) The payee or the holder in due course makes a demand for payment of said amount of money which remained unpaid due to return of cheque by the bank by giving a notice in writing to the drawer
(g) The notive must have been given within thrity days of the receipt of the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid.
(h) The drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of aforesaid money to the payee or the holder within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice. Mahipal Singh v. State of U.P., 2014 (84) ACC 462.