Embedded Files
When Cheque Is Written and Signed by the Accused, Presumption Under Section 138 NI Act Stands Strengthened: Kerala High Court
Advocate Akanksha Roy – Best Cheque Bounce Case Lawyer in Delhi
In an important judgment relating to cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Kerala High Court has held that when the cheque is found to be written and signed by the accused/payer, the entries showing issuance of the cheque in favour of the complainant also stand established.
The judgment was passed in Wilfred Jose v. Jayapal, Criminal Appeal No. 1964 of 2008, decided on 18 May 2026, with neutral citation 2026:KER:33932. The Court set aside the acquittal of the accused and convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 138 NI Act.
Brief Facts of the Cheque Bounce Case
The complainant had filed a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV, Neyyattinkara, alleging that the accused had issued a cheque dated 10 February 2004 for a sum of ₹3,00,000/- in discharge of a legally enforceable liability.
When the complainant presented the cheque before the bank, it was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Thereafter, the complainant issued a legal demand notice to the accused. Despite service/intimation, the accused failed to make the payment within the prescribed time.
Accordingly, the complainant initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Trial Court Acquittal
The Trial Court acquitted the accused. The Magistrate observed that though the accused had written and signed the cheque, the complainant had allegedly failed to prove the transaction properly.
The complainant challenged the acquittal before the Kerala High Court.
Kerala High Court’s Important Observation
The Kerala High Court held that once the Magistrate found that the accused himself wrote and signed the cheque, there was no justification to hold that the transaction was different from what was stated by the complainant, especially when the accused had not produced any evidence to prove his defence.
The Court observed that when a cheque is written and signed by the payer, the entries in the cheque showing issuance in the name of the complainant/payee also stand established.
Presumption Under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act
The High Court further explained that in a cheque bounce case, once the complainant enters the witness box and proves the transaction and execution of the cheque, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act arise in favour of the complainant.
After this initial burden is discharged by the complainant, it is for the accused to rebut the presumption either through cross-examination, material already on record, or by producing independent evidence.
In this case, the accused claimed that the cheque had reached the complainant through another person named Radhakrishnan. However, the accused neither examined Radhakrishnan nor produced any evidence to support this defence.
High Court Set Aside Acquittal
The Kerala High Court found that the Trial Court had adopted an incorrect approach. The complainant’s evidence regarding the loan transaction and issuance of cheque remained reliable and was not shaken in cross-examination.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of acquittal, and convicted the accused under Section 138 NI Act.
Sentence Imposed by the Court
The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one day till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of ₹4,50,000/-.
Out of the fine amount, ₹4,25,000/- was directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) CrPC, and ₹25,000/- was directed to go to the State Exchequer.
Why This Judgment Matters in Cheque Bounce Cases
Cheque bounce cases are common in commercial transactions, friendly loans, business dealings, property payments, and professional payments. Many accused persons take false defences such as blank cheque, security cheque, lost cheque, or cheque given to another person.
This judgment makes it clear that once the complainant proves the transaction and cheque execution, the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the legal presumption. Mere denial is not enough.
Need Legal Help in a Cheque Bounce Case?
If your cheque has been dishonoured due to insufficient funds, account closed, payment stopped, or any other reason covered under law, it is important to take timely legal action.
Advocate Akanksha Roy, handles cheque bounce cases under Section 138 NI Act before Delhi Courts, including Rohini Court, Tis Hazari Court, Dwarka Court, Saket Court, Karkardooma Court, Patiala House Court, and Digital NI Act Courts.
For legal consultation in cheque bounce matters, cheque bounce notice, filing of complaint, defence in cheque bounce case, settlement, appeal, or execution of compensation order, you may contact:
Advocate Akanksha Roy
Best Cheque Bounce Case Lawyer in Delhi
Pankaj Kumar & Co.
Delhi Courts
Case Details
Case Title: Wilfred Jose v. Jayapal
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Justice A. Badharudeen
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1964 of 2008
Date of Judgment: 18 May 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:33932
Provision Involved: Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Result: Acquittal set aside; accused convicted
Cheque Amount: ₹3,00,000/-
Fine Imposed: ₹4,50,000/-
Compensation to Complainant: ₹4,25,000/-
Legal Importance of This Judgment
This judgment is important for complainants in cheque bounce cases because it confirms that:
If the accused admits or the Court finds that the cheque was written and signed by the accused, the complainant’s case becomes stronger.
Once execution of cheque and transaction are proved, presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act arise in favour of the complainant.
The accused cannot escape liability by merely making a bald defence without evidence.
If the accused claims that the cheque reached the complainant through another person, the accused must prove such defence.
Courts should not reject the complainant’s case on hyper-technical grounds when cheque execution and liability are established.
Google Sites
Report abuse