In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the presumption that a blank cheque, voluntarily signed and handed over by the drawer for payment, is issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt, as outlined in Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Citing the precedent set in the case of Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar (2019), the Court emphasized that once a blank cheque is issued towards payment, a presumption regarding its validity arises against the accused drawer. The burden of proof lies with the accused to refute this presumption.
The Court, consisting of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and A.G. Masih, overturned the High Court’s decision to allow forensic examination of the signature on the blank cheque. It reaffirmed that unless there is substantial evidence to prove otherwise, the presumption of debt discharge through the cheque stands.
The appellant-drawee, in this case, challenged the High Court’s order, arguing against the need for forensic examination. The Trial Court initially rejected the application for expert evidence, but the High Court intervened, directing forensic analysis to compare the cheque’s contents with the signature of the appellant drawee.
The Supreme Court’s decision, therefore, not only reinforces the legal principle surrounding blank cheques but also clarifies the burden of proof in cases of cheque bounce. The ruling serves as a reminder of the stringent requirements for disputing the validity of a cheque issued towards payment of a debt, placing the onus on the accused to provide compelling evidence to the contrary.
In essence, the judgment highlights the significance of adhering to the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, ensuring clarity and fairness in financial transactions governed by cheques.
