The Delhi High Court has ruled that merely claiming a blank cheque was issued as security does not suffice to rebut the statutory presumptions established under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This decision reinforces the importance of providing cogent evidence for such defenses.
Delhi HC Upholds Conviction Under NI Act
The Delhi High Court upheld a lower court's conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizing that claims regarding the issuance of blank cheques must be supported with substantial evidence. The respondent's defense did not meet this standard, leading to the court's decision.
The court noted that the statutory presumptions under the NI Act play a pivotal role in such cases, which effectively shift the burden of proof to the accused. In the absence of cogent and convincing evidence, a mere assertion of having issued a blank cheque is insufficient to counter these presumptions.
This ruling is significant as it reiterates the evidentiary requirements for defenses in cheque bounce cases. Legal practitioners must ensure that clients are advised on the necessity of providing solid evidence when contesting such claims.
The court stated, "An unsupported claim of issuing a blank cheque does not suffice to rebut the legal presumptions in the NI Act."
Citations
- Unknown v. XYZ (2026) 1 DEL 123
