Third-year Law Notes & Flashcards

1. Yogendra Pratap Singh v. Savitri Pandey, MANU/SC/0843/2014

Facts:

In this case, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act immediately after issuing the statutory notice to the drawer of the cheque. However, the complaint was filed before the expiry of the statutory 15-day period provided to the drawer to make payment after receiving the notice.

Issue:

Whether a complaint under Section 138 can be entertained by the court if it is filed before the expiry of the mandatory 15-day notice period.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court held that such a complaint is premature and not maintainable. The Court emphasized that the statutory scheme of Section 138 clearly requires that the drawer must be given 15 days from the date of receipt of the demand notice to make payment.

Reasoning:

Section 138 contains specific procedural requirements before criminal liability can arise:

• The cheque must be dishonoured.
• A demand notice must be issued within 30 days.
• The drawer must be given 15 days to make payment.
• Only after the expiry of this period without payment does the cause of action arise.

Principle:

A complaint filed before the completion of the 15-day period is invalid, as the statutory cause of action has not yet arisen.

2. Ripudaman Singh v. Balkrishna, MANU/SC/0412/2019

Facts:

The accused had entered into an agreement to sell property and issued cheques as part of the transaction. The cheques were later dishonoured. The accused argued that since the transaction related to an agreement to sell immovable property, it did not create a legally enforceable debt under Section 138.

Issue:

Whether dishonour of cheques issued under an agreement to sell constitutes an offence under Section 138.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court held that such cheques represent legally enforceable liabilities, and therefore their dishonour attracts the provisions of Section 138.

Reasoning:

The Court observed that when parties enter into contractual arrangements such as agreements to sell and cheques are issued pursuant to those obligations, the cheque represents consideration for the contract.

Principle:

A cheque issued in connection with contractual transactions, including property agreements, may constitute a legally enforceable liability under Section 138.

3. B. Sunitha v. State of Telangana, MANU/SC/1527/2017

Facts:

An advocate claimed fees based on a percentage of the amount involved in litigation and obtained cheques from the client towards such fees. When the cheques were dishonoured, the advocate initiated proceedings under Section 138.

Issue:

Whether a cheque issued for payment of contingency fees can form the basis of prosecution under Section 138.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court held that such agreements are contrary to professional ethics and public policy.

Reasoning:

Under the Bar Council of India Rules, advocates are prohibited from charging contingency fees or sharing in the subject matter of litigation. Such agreements are considered void and unenforceable.

Since Section 138 requires the cheque to be issued for a legally enforceable debt or liability, a cheque issued under an illegal agreement cannot satisfy this requirement.

Principle:

Cheques issued for illegal or unethical claims, such as contingency fees for advocates, cannot give rise to liability under Section 138.

4. Vani Agro Enterprises v. State of Gujarat, MANU/SC/1603/2019

Facts:

Multiple cheques issued by the accused were dishonoured. The complainant issued a single notice covering multiple cheques and subsequently filed several complaints. The accused requested consolidation of the cases.

Issue:

Whether multiple cheque dishonour cases arising from a single notice can be consolidated into one proceeding.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court refused to consolidate the cases.

Reasoning:

The Court observed that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not contain provisions permitting consolidation of separate cheque dishonour complaints. Each dishonoured cheque constitutes a separate offence under Section 138.

Principle:

Each dishonoured cheque leads to a distinct cause of action and separate prosecution.

5. Kishan Rao v. Shankar Gouda, MANU/SC/0669/2018

Facts:

The accused denied liability in a cheque bounce case and argued that the cheque was not issued for repayment of a debt.

Issue:

Whether a simple denial by the accused is sufficient to rebut the presumption under Section 139.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court held that mere denial is not sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption.

Reasoning:

Section 139 creates a legal presumption that the cheque was issued for discharge of a legally enforceable debt. To rebut this presumption, the accused must present probable evidence or circumstances that make the existence of debt doubtful.

Principle:

The burden shifts to the accused, and a bare denial does not discharge this burden.

6. Radha Krishna v. Dasari Deepthi, MANU/SC/0571/2019

Facts:

A complaint was filed against a company and its directors for dishonour of a cheque.

Issue:

Whether directors can be prosecuted without specific allegations regarding their role in the company.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court held that prosecution of directors requires specific averments in the complaint.

Reasoning:

Under Section 141, liability is imposed only on those persons who were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the time of the offence.

Principle:

Mere designation as a director is insufficient; specific responsibility must be pleaded and proved.

7. Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, MANU/SC/0655/2014

Facts:

There was confusion regarding the territorial jurisdiction of courts in cheque dishonour cases.

Issue:

Which court has jurisdiction to try offences under Section 138.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court held that jurisdiction lies with the court where the drawee bank (the drawer's bank) dishonours the cheque.

Impact:

This decision caused significant procedural changes and later led to legislative amendments in the NI Act in 2015, restoring jurisdiction to the payee’s bank location.

Principle:

Territorial jurisdiction initially depended on the location of dishonour, though later modified by statute.

8. Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, MANU/SC/0154/2019

Facts:

The accused argued that the cheque was blank when signed and later filled by the complainant.

Issue:

Whether filling in details in a signed blank cheque amounts to material alteration.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court held that it does not constitute material alteration.

Reasoning:

If a person voluntarily signs and hands over a cheque, the presumption under Section 139 applies.

Principle:

A signed blank cheque voluntarily handed over can attract liability under Section 138.

9. Sudhir Kumar Bhalla v. Jagdish, MANU/SC/7595/2008

Facts:

The accused claimed that the cheque was issued only as security and not for repayment of a debt.

Issue:

Whether security cheques attract liability under Section 138.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court observed that Section 138 applies only when the cheque is issued for discharge of debt or liability.

Principle:

If the cheque was issued purely as security and no liability existed on the date of presentation, Section 138 may not apply.

10. Rangappa v. Srimohan, AIR 2010 SC 1898

Facts:

The accused disputed the presumption that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt.

Issue:

What standard of proof is required to rebut the presumption under Section 139.

Judgment:

The Court held that the accused must prove his defence on a preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt.

Principle:

The presumption under Section 139 includes existence of legally enforceable debt.

Copyright © 2026 Manupatra. All Rights Reserved.