The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that admission of a signature on a blank cheque raises a statutory presumption of liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Conviction follows unless the accused rebuts the presumption.
HP HC on Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that the mere admission of a signature on a blank cheque triggers a statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability.
The court emphasized that once the prosecution establishes the accused’s signature on the instrument, a rebuttable presumption arises regarding the existence of a valid transaction. The burden then shifts to the accused to demonstrate that the cheque was issued without any underlying liability. Merely labelling the cheque as 'blank' does not absolve the accused if the signature is admitted.
The court held: 'Admission of the signature shifts the burden under Section 139, and failure to offer a credible explanation for the issuance of the cheque results in the presumption operating in favour of the prosecution.'
For practitioners, this decision underscores the evidentiary weight of a voluntarily admitted signature in cheque bounce cases, even on blank instruments. Legal strategy must now focus on rebutting the presumptive liability through credible evidence of absence of debt or coercion.
Citations
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139
