 |
I once read that "Every cheque tells a story of trust,
accountability, and financial integrity." So, when I stumbled upon the
case of K. Ramesh v. K. Kothandaraman SLP(Crl) 3377 of 2019 (Supreme Court), it was intriguing to see how legal experts can
dispute even the smallest details to support their clients. Surprisingly, the matter
of the dispute in front of the Supreme Court was not on cheque bouncing;
instead, the dispute centred around the age of the ink used for the signature on
the cheque and the age of the signature and contents of the cheque.
Let's explore how our highest court navigates through such
intricacies in cheque disputes.
As the case unfolded, the courts emphasized a key legal presumption
outlined in Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, of 1881. According
to this provision, when an individual signs a cheque and hands it over to the
payee (receiver of a cheque), it is "presumed" that he is responsible for
honouring the payment unless he provides evidence to prove otherwise. This
legal stance delineates accountability in financial transactions.
The onus to rebut this presumption lies on the accused who signed the
cheque as was decided by the Supreme Court in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar (2019) 4 SCC 197. This means that even if the cheque is
post-dated, the signer cannot escape the penal consequences under Section 138
of the Act. Furthermore, if a signed blank cheque is voluntarily handed to a
payee for a specific payment, the payee has the authority to complete the
cheque's details and this will not invalidate the cheque. However, the accused
must demonstrate that the cheque was not intended to discharge a debt or
liability. Essentially, any blank cheque leaf, when voluntarily signed and
handed over for payment, invokes the presumption under Section 139, unless
substantial evidence suggests that the cheque wasn't intended to settle a debt
or liability.
In the present case, there was a dispute over the ink used on the cheque.
However, the courts highlighted that minor details like the age of the ink
don't invalidate the cheque if the signature is genuine. This reaffirmed the
importance of focusing on substantive evidence rather than trivialities.
So, what's the bottom line? In cheque disputes, the law leans towards
presumption. If someone signs a cheque, they're presumed responsible for it
unless proven otherwise.
Comments
Post a Comment