Rebuttable Presumption III

Trial Court completely overlooked and failed to appreciate statutory presumption drawn under Section 118 and Section 139, a point of law notably crystalized in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 18 SCC 106.

Trial Court ought to have presumed, cheque was issued as consideration for a legally enforceable debt, once signatures were admitted. Trial Court fell in error when it called for explanation of circumstances of liability to pay. Such approach amounts to a patent error of law.

No doubt, presumptions raised under Section 118 and Section 139 are rebuttable in nature. A probable defence must meet the standard of ‘preponderance of probability’ and not mere ‘possibility’.

It is useful to cite Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197.

“Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139, in absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt.”

Hon’ble Justice Surya Kant, M/s. Kalamani Tex v. P. Balasubramanian, [Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 2021].

_____

Also see, Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh, [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 12802 of 2022] decided on 09.10.2023.

_____

As underscored by this Court recently in Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh, (2023) 10 SCC 148 accused may establish non-existence of a debt or liability either through conclusive evidence that concerned cheque was not issued towards presumed debt or liability, or through adduction of circumstantial evidence vide standard of preponderance of probabilities.

It is pertinent to make a reference to a decision of 3-Judge Bench in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197 which went on to hold, if a signature on a blank cheque stands admitted to having been inscribed voluntarily, it is sufficient to trigger a presumption under Section 139, even if there is no admission to execution of entire contents in cheque.

Hon’ble Justice Augustine George Masih, Sri Dattatraya v. Sharanappa, [Criminal Appeal No. 3257 of 2024] decided on 07.08.2024.