(i) the cheque was duly issued;
(ii) it was issued with dishonest intent;
(iii) it was issued towards repayment of a loan or fulfilment of an obligation; and
(iv) it was dishonoured on presentation.
Under section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 there is statutory presumption that every cheque was made, drawn, indorsed and negotiated for consideration and that it’s holder is a holder in due course – an expression which has been defined in section 9 as a person who for consideration becomes the possessor of a promisory note, or bill of exchange or cheque if payable to bearer, or the payee or the indorsee thereof, if payable to order, before it became due, without knowing that any defect existed in the title of the person from whom he derives his own title. In view of this provision, if the cheque says “pay cash” and the words “or bearer” are not scored off, the person in possession of the instrument would be presumed to be a holder in due course. In the instant case, Respondent No.2 enjoys the same presumption in respect of Cheque No. CA55223496 which can be rebutted at a regular trial where the parties have equal opportunity to adduce evidence to prove their respective claims and test the credibility of the witnesses of the other side through crossexamination. The sole opinion of the Investigating Officer cannot negate that presumption.
The Petitioner has neither denied his signature on Cheque No. CA55223496 nor the fact that it is drawn on his account. He has challenged its validity on the premise that it does not conform to the requirements of section 5 of the NIA of 1881. In view of the above discourse, that contention is repelled.
Crl. Misc. No. 8564/M/2022
Ahmad Faran Sabir Vs. The State etc.
Date of hearing 26.5.2022
0 Comments