April 15, 2019:
Supreme Court has held that even a blank signed cheque given for payment will attract the presumption of liability and that filling of cheque by other person is immaterial.
Justice Indira Banerjee speaking for a two judges bench has passed the judgment in case titled Bir Singh vs Mukesh Kumar on 06.02.2019.
The Supreme Court was dealing with a cheque bounce case where apart from other things, the accused had claimed that the complainant might have misused his blank signed cheque.
In this context, the Supreme Court observed “Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt”.
It further observed “A meaningful reading of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act including, in particular, Sections 20, 87 and 139, makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of Section 138 would be attracted”.
The Court also observed “If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence”.
Read the judgment here:
Share this Document :
Picture Source :
