Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Accused's Burden of Proof and Defense - Under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused is not required to prove their defense beyond a reasonable doubt; rather, they must probabilise their defense and may rely on evidence or materials submitted by the complainant to rebut the presumption of liability. It is not mandatory for the accused to appear in court or testify in support of their defense. 2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 1041, 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 863, 2025 0 Supreme(J&K) 204, 2022 0 Supreme(Bom) 1870
No Need for Accused to Come in Witness Box - The legal framework emphasizes that the accused need not testify or support their defense personally; the evidentiary burden is on establishing a probable defense, not proving innocence beyond doubt. This principle is reinforced by case law, which clarifies that the absence of the accused's testimony does not automatically imply guilt. 2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 1041, 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 863, 2025 0 Supreme(J&K) 204
Proving Loan and Source of Funds - The complainant must establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt and the source of the borrowed amount. Failure to prove the loan amount or its source weakens the prosecution's case. The accused can raise a probable defense by challenging the existence of the debt or the legitimacy of the funds. For example, in cases where the accused claims to have borrowed less than the amount stated or denies issuing the cheque, the court assesses whether the defense is probable enough to create doubt. 2025 0 Supreme(J&K) 204, 2024 0 Supreme(Chh) 243, 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 863
Timely Filing of Complaint - The payee or complainant must file a complaint within one month from the date of cheque dishonor, as mandated by law. Delay in filing can adversely affect the case, and courts scrutinize whether the complaint was lodged within the statutory period.
Sayed Mahbub Morshed vs The State and another - Supreme Court
,solaiman khan shujon vs the state and another - Supreme Court
Legal Notice and Statutory Requirements - The complainant must issue a legal notice to the drawer of the cheque within the statutory period, demanding repayment. Failure to do so can be a ground for dismissing the case. The accused can also challenge the receipt or service of such notice as part of their probable defense. 2025 0 Supreme(J&K) 204, 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 863, 2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 1041
Defense of Taking Less Amount or Repayment - When the accused admits to borrowing but claims to have repaid or borrowed a lesser amount, courts examine the evidence such as signatures on cheques, bank statements, or witnesses to determine credibility. The absence of proof of repayment or a probable defense can lead to conviction under Section 138. 2024 0 Supreme(Chh) 243, 2022 0 Supreme(Bom) 1870
Legal Presumption and Probable Defense - The law presumes the cheque's validity and the existence of debt. The accused's defense must establish a probable doubt regarding these presumptions. An unsubstantiated or purely possible defense is insufficient; courts require the defense to be probable and supported by evidence. 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 863, 2025 0 Supreme(J&K) 204, 2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 1041
In negotiable instrument cases, the law balances the presumption of liability with the accused's right to raise a probable defense without the obligation to testify. The accused's failure to produce evidence or establish a probable defense can lead to conviction. The key points include the importance of timely legal notices, credible evidence of loan transactions, and the non-mandatory nature of the accused's personal testimony. Courts assess whether the defense raises a genuine doubt about the debt's existence or legitimacy, rather than requiring the accused to prove innocence beyond doubt.
References:- 2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 1041- 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 1581- 2025 0 Supreme(J&K) 204-
Sayed Mahbub Morshed vs The State and another - Supreme Court
-solaiman khan shujon vs the state and another - Supreme Court
- 2024 0 Supreme(Chh) 243- 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 863- 2022 0 Supreme(Bom) 1870- 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 72944
In the fast-paced world of business transactions in India, cheques remain a common payment method. However, when a cheque bounces, it triggers serious legal consequences under of the (). A frequent question arises: Accused Deposits Amount in One Month no Defence in Negotiable Case – does simply depositing the cheque amount into court within the statutory one-month period provide a full defense against liability?
This blog post explores this critical issue, drawing from key judicial precedents and legal principles. Note: This is general information based on Indian law and case law. It is not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Under Indian law, depositing the amount into court within the statutory period does not automatically constitute a full and effective defense to a case. Merely depositing the amount in one month without further substantive defense does not absolve the accused of liability. The legal presumption of liability remains unless rebutted through credible evidence.
Sureshchandra Chandrashankar Joshi VS State of Gujarat - (2009)
The presumes that the cheque was issued for consideration and to discharge a debt or liability (). This presumption is mandatory but rebuttable, placing the burden on the accused. 118139
Sureshchandra Chandrashankar Joshi VS State of Gujarat - (2009)
Section 118 creates a that every negotiable instrument was made for consideration and in the ordinary course of business. Section 139 presumes the cheque was issued towards discharge of a debt or liability. These shift the burden to the accused to prove otherwise, typically that no existed or it was .
Sureshchandra Chandrashankar Joshi VS State of Gujarat - (2009)
2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 36Courts emphasize a over a mere 'possible' one. As clarified in cases, the accused must set up a , not just a hypothetical one, and substantiate it with evidence despite opportunities. 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 2653
The accused need not prove innocence beyond reasonable doubt; a suffices, probabilising their version using prosecution evidence or other materials. Importantly, the accused need not testify personally or enter the witness box – absence doesn't imply guilt. 2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 1041 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 863 2025 0 Supreme(J&K) 204 2022 0 Supreme(Bom) 1870
For instance, challenging the loan's existence, source of funds, or claiming lesser borrowing/repayment can raise doubt if supported by bank statements or witnesses. 2025 0 Supreme(J&K) 204 2024 0 Supreme(Chh) 243 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 863
Depositing the amount post-dishonour may influence penalty or sentencing but does not extinguish criminal liability. In Jain P. Jose, the court observed: deposit of money in court does not absolve the accused of criminal liability under .
2018 0 Supreme(Bom) 793
Similarly, in cases like S. Natarajan, the held the accused must prove no existed; deposit alone doesn't rebut unless paired with proof of invalidity. 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 1455
Other examples show deposits after delays or as conditions for quashing, but not as standalone defenses:- Accused deposited after one month, yet faced scrutiny for credit sales without verification. 2017 0 Supreme(Bom) 606 2017 0 Supreme(Bom) 2661- Conditional deposits (e.g., Rs.1,56,000 within six weeks) accepted with apologies, but only alongside other factors. 2017 0 Supreme(Kar) 930
Mere deposit without documentary evidence (e.g., fraud, coercion) fails. 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 514
Sureshchandra Chandrashankar Joshi VS State of Gujarat - (2009)
In Bangladesh-related appeals (analogous contexts), timely complaints within one month were stressed, with defenses examined under .
Sayed Mahbub Morshed vs The State and another - 2024 Supreme(
Sayed Mahbub Morshed vs The State and another - )(SC) 12173 - 2024 Supreme(Sayed Mahbub Morshed vs The State and another - )(SC) 12173solaiman khan shujon vs the state and another - 2024 Supreme(
Sayed Mahbub Morshed vs The State and another - )(SC) 13825 - 2024 Supreme(Sayed Mahbub Morshed vs The State and another - )(SC) 13825Sayed Mahbub Morshed vs The State and another - 2024 Supreme(
Sayed Mahbub Morshed vs The State and another - )(SC) 12173 - 2024 Supreme(Sayed Mahbub Morshed vs The State and another - )(SC) 12173solaiman khan shujon vs the state and another - 2024 Supreme(
Sayed Mahbub Morshed vs The State and another - )(SC) 13825 - 2024 Supreme(Sayed Mahbub Morshed vs The State and another - )(SC) 13825 2025 0 Supreme(J&K) 204In summary, deposit of the amount in court within one month does not provide a complete defense in cases. The accused must rebut the presumption of liability under with credible, probable evidence showing no enforceable debt. While deposits aid mitigation, they don't erase the offence without more. Courts balance presumptions with fair defense opportunities, but unsubstantiated claims fail.
Key Takeaways:- Presumption favors complainant; accused bears rebuttal burden.- > personal testimony.- Timely complaint/notice essential for prosecution.- Consult lawyers for tailored defenses in cheque dishonour matters.
References (select excerpts):1.
Sureshchandra Chandrashankar Joshi VS State of Gujarat - (2009)
: Deposit alone doesn't absolve liability.2.: No defense from court deposit.3. 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 1455: Rebuttal needed beyond deposit.4. 2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 36: Prove debt.5. 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 514: Burden on accused.6. 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 2653: Probable vs. possible defense.7. 2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 1041, 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 863, etc., on standards.
Stay informed, issue cheques cautiously, and maintain records to avoid pitfalls. (Word count: 1028)
#Section138, #ChequeBounce, #NIACT
That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box in support of his defence. Section 139 imposed an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden. 25.5. It is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box to support his defence." ... I do not have any proof to show that the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- was lent to the accused. xiv. Today, one re....
JMIC, Faridabad, by alleging that accused had taken friendly loan of Rs.1,75,000/- in May 2009 for a period of one month, promising to refund the same along with interest @ 24% per month. ... Application of the accused under Section 315 CrPC to appear as his own witness was allowed and accused then appeared in the witness box as DW1 and further examined one Babu Lal as ....
, after the receipt of information from the Bank regarding dishonour of the cheque and complaint was preferred within stipulated period of one month from the date of expiry of statutory period of 15 days, from the date of receipt of notice. ... Prosecution fails, if accused succeeds to raise the defence, sufficient to create a doubt about the existence of legally enforceable debt. It is also incumbent upon the ac....
, the payee should have filed a complaint within one month. ... ) year and to pay a fine of Tk. 1,02,124/- (one Lakh two thousand one hundred twenty four). ... 1) while defence examined under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument of the Negotiable
, the payee should have filed a complaint within one month. ... ) year and to pay a fine of Tk. 1,02,124/- (one Lakh two thousand one hundred twenty four). ... 1) while defence examined under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act,138 of the Negotiable
In this case the defence of the respondent/ accused was that he had taken less amount from the applicant, but the signature of the cheque and the fact of cheque available with the complainant goes to show that although the accused has admitted his debt. 6. ... The entire defence of respondent/accused was only that he has taken less amount of loan, but ....
, 2015 (4) Civil Court Cases 234 (Delhi) , Delhi High Court clarified that accused is obliged to set up a probable defence, which cannot be only a 'possible' defence. ... , but despite availing numerous opportunities, accused failed to produce any evidence to substantiate his defence. ... the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution case. ... Here itself, it may be noted ....
Respondent No.1/accused who is found guilty for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is hereby sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay compensation to the tune of double the amount of cheque, i.e. ... Rs. 14,00,000/-, within a period of one month, failing which, accused shall undergo simple imprison....
. the complainant has to issue a legal notice informing the dishonor of the cheque and demanding the amount covered by the cheque within a month from the date of cheque returned; and 5. the cheque amount is not paid even thereafter. ... The case of the complainant is that the accused having close acquaintance with the complainant approached him on 18.03.2016 and demanded a loan of Rs.6 lakhs to meet out h....
It was also alleged that after taking the final amount of Rs.25,000/- in November 2004, the petitioner had promised the complainant to return the entire loan amount within a period of one month from the date of receiving the final amount. ... In the instant case the accused has not brought any material on record or any probable defence which would rebu....
The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons circulated advertisements and canvassed the general public that deposits are invited in their companies and their companies would pay Rs.8,500/- per month as monthly returns for each deposit of Rs.1 lakh for 5 years and that they would return back the deposit amount to the depositors at the end of fifth year. Enticed by these advertisements / false assurances, A18-Mohan canvassed and assured to give high returns to the c....
(c) If the aforesaid conditions are not complied, it would be open to the complainant to move this Court for revival of the present proceedings. In view of the above, the unconditional apology of the accused is accepted with the following conditions: (a) The accused deposits an amount of Rs.1,56,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty six thousand) with this Court within a period of six weeks from today. (b) The accused pays the penalty of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) ....
During his cross-examination, PW-3 stated that society had no practice to sale out the goods on credit. In his evidence PW-3 stated that the Secretary of the society i.e. accused did not deposit the amount in the account of the society immediately, as decided in the meeting. However the accused deposited the said amount after one month. However, he stated that the accused did inform in the meeting that goods were given on credit and that fact is not verified by PW-3 from the ....
However the accused deposited the said amount after one month. During his cross-examination, PW3 stated that society had no practise to sale out the goods on credit. However, he stated that the accused did inform in the meeting that goods were given on credit and that fact is not verified by PW3 from the record. In his evidence PW3 stated that the Secretary of the society i.e. accused did not deposit the amount in the account of the society immediately, as decided in the meet....
After receiving the deposits, the Accused had not repaid the amount at the end of three years. The First Respondent (P.W.1) deposited a sum of Rs.2 lakhs and later, another sum of Rs.50,000/-.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
