Burden of Proof in Case of Cheque Bouncing Cases

INTRODUCTION

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“the Act”) is a very well-known provision even amongst laymen. It imposes a punishment in the form of an imprisonment in case a cheque, which has been issued, bounces. Whilst this is a very simplistic explanation of this very important provision, a very vital ingredient is what is the burden of proof in case of a cheque bouncing case and who is it on? The Supreme Court in its verdict in the case of Rajesh Jain vs. Ajay Singh, 2023 AIR(SC) 5018 has laid down clear-cut guidelines on the same. In the case on hand, the accused had borrowed funds from the complainant and was not returning the same. Finally, he issued a post-dated cheque which bounced on presentation. Accordingly, the complainant filed a case under Section 138 of the Act.

The Trial Court held that the only question which remained for determination was whether a legally valid and enforceable debt existed qua the complainant and the cheque in question was issued in discharge of the said liability / debt? The Trial Court answered the issue in the negative. It held that the complainant had failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. It has been observed that the defence led by the accused has created a doubt regarding the truthfulness of the complainant’s case. Accordingly, the Trial Court dismis