Story covers Challenge Cheque Bounce Conviction in HighCourt Revision at Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms: Mere Claim of a Blank Security Cheque Is Not Enough to Escape Liability Under Section 138 NI Act. To challenge a cheque bounce conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in India, you must file a Criminal Appeal in the Sessions Court within 30 days, apply for a Suspension of Sentence (Bail), and prepare to deposit a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation amount. [1, 2]

In an important judgment concerning cheque dishonour cases, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has reiterated that merely alleging a cheque was issued as a “blank security cheque” does not, by itself, rebut the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Thus Challenge Cheque Bounce Conviction in HighCourt Criminal Revision.

The Court emphasized that once the drawer admits his signature on the cheque, the law presumes that it was issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability. The burden then shifts to the accused to produce credible evidence to dislodge that presumption if he is to Challenge Cheque Bounce Conviction.

Challenge Cheque Bounce Conviction- Background

The case arose out of a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after a cheque issued towards repayment of an alleged friendly loan was dishonoured due to insufficient funds.

Following the statutory demand notice and non-payment of the cheque amount, criminal proceedings were initiated.

The Trial Court convicted the accused, and the conviction was subsequently affirmed by the Appellate Court. The accused thereafter challenged the concurrent findings before the High Court through a criminal revision petition.

Filing the Appeal and Staying the Sentence

Defence Taken by the Accused

Before the High Court, the accused contended that:

• The cheque was issued only as a blank security cheque.
• There was no legally enforceable debt.
• The complainant had failed to establish the alleged loan transaction.
• A subsequent settlement had allegedly reduced the liability.
• The written acknowledgment relied upon by the complainant had not been properly proved.

The accused therefore sought reversal of the conviction.

Also Read-Cheque Bounce Non-Bailable Warrant HighCourt Case

High Court’s Findings

The High Court rejected these submissions.

The Court observed that the accused had admitted his signatures on the cheque. Once execution of the cheque stood admitted, the statutory presumptions contained in Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act automatically came into operation.

The Court held that merely asserting that the cheque was issued as security is insufficient. Such a defence must be supported by reliable evidence capable of rebutting the statutory presumption.

In the absence of such evidence, the legal presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque continues to operate.

Blank Signed Cheque Does Not Automatically Help the Accused

The Court further observed that a person who voluntarily signs and hands over a cheque cannot avoid liability merely by contending that the cheque was blank when it was delivered.

The accused must satisfactorily explain the circumstances in which the cheque came into the complainant’s possession and establish that it was not issued towards any legally enforceable liability.

A bald or unsupported plea is not sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption.

Importance of Documentary Evidence

The High Court also noted that the complainant had produced documentary material acknowledging the liability.

Although the accused attempted to dispute the document, he admitted his signatures and failed to produce any evidence to establish that the document had been fabricated or misused.

The Court observed that such unsupported allegations could not displace otherwise reliable documentary evidence.

Also Read-Cheque Bounce HighCourt Revision Petition Chandigarh

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction

Another significant aspect of the judgment relates to the limited powers of the High Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction.

The Court reiterated that where both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have recorded concurrent findings based upon appreciation of evidence, the Revisional Court will ordinarily not interfere unless there is perversity, jurisdictional error, or manifest miscarriage of justice.

Since no such exceptional circumstance was demonstrated, the High Court declined to re-appreciate the evidence.

Key Takeaways

• Admission of signature on a cheque triggers the statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
• Merely calling a cheque a “security cheque” does not automatically defeat liability under Section 138.
• The burden lies on the accused to produce credible evidence rebutting the statutory presumption.
• Unsupported allegations regarding blank signed cheques or fabricated documents are generally insufficient.
• High Courts exercising revisional jurisdiction ordinarily do not interfere with concurrent findings unless serious legal errors are established.

Also Read-174A FIR Quashing Cheque Bounce Case

Conclusion

The judgment reinforces the strong statutory protections available to holders of dishonoured cheques under the Negotiable Instruments Act. It also serves as an important reminder that legal presumptions created by the Act cannot be displaced by mere assertions unsupported by evidence.

For litigants involved in cheque dishonour cases, the decision highlights the importance of producing cogent evidence when seeking to rebut the statutory presumption attached to a signed cheque.

By Satish Mishra, Advocate. (99888-17966)

Source: Punjab & Haryana High Court, Judgment dated 25 May 2026 concerning conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.