Narender Kumar's plea dismissed; statutory presumption under Negotiable Instruments Act remains unchallenged.
In a significant judgment delivered on May 25, 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the conviction of Narender Kumar in a cheque bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The decision, rendered by Justice Sumeet Goel, affirmed the findings of the lower courts, maintaining that Kumar failed to rebut the statutory presumptions attached to the issuance of the cheque.
The case originated when the complainant, respondent No. 2, alleged that Narender Kumar had issued a cheque for Rs. 3,70,000/- as repayment of a friendly loan. The cheque, drawn on Andhra Bank, Sirsa Branch, was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Despite being served a legal notice, Kumar did not settle the amount, prompting the complainant to initiate legal proceedings.
During the trial, the petitioner admitted to signing the cheque, which triggered the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt. Kumar contended that the cheque was a blank signed security cheque that had been misused, a claim the courts dismissed due to lack of substantive evidence.
The trial court, followed by the appellate court, found Kumar guilty, emphasizing that mere assertions without corroborative evidence were insufficient to counter the statutory presumption. The courts further noted that Kumar's admissions regarding his signature on the cheque and an agreement acknowledging his debt negated his defense.
The High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, found no jurisdictional error or manifest illegality in the lower courts' findings. It reiterated the established legal principle that revisional courts do not upset concurrent factual findings in the absence of perversity. The decision referenced Supreme Court precedents, underscoring that the revisional court's role is not to re-analyze evidence unless there is a gross miscarriage of justice.
The dismissal of Kumar's petition reaffirms the legal stance that the burden to disprove the presumption of liability falls on the accused once the execution of the cheque is admitted. The judgment serves as a cautionary tale on the importance of maintaining credible evidence to rebut statutory presumptions in cheque bounce cases.
Bottom line:-
Negotiable Instruments Act - Presumption under Section 139 attached to a cheque that it was issued in discharge of legal liability unless rebutted by the accused with cogent evidence - Mere assertion of a blank signed cheque being misused is not sufficient to rebut the presumption.
Statutory provision(s):
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138, 118, 139
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313
Narender Kumar v. State of Haryana, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc id # 2911247
