Legal Learning | Shri Ganpati Jurists
Case: Sumit Bansal v. M/s MGI Developers and Promoters
Provision Involved: Sections 138 & 139, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Key Legal Principles Laid Down
Separate Cause of Action for Each Cheque
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that each dishonour of a cheque gives rise to an independent cause of action under Section 138 NI Act, provided the complete statutory chain is fulfilled—
presentation → dishonour → legal notice → failure to pay within the prescribed time.
Multiplicity Is Not a Ground for Quashing
Merely because multiple cheques arise from the same underlying transaction, prosecutions cannot be quashed at the threshold on the ground of multiplicity. Each cheque is a distinct negotiable instrument and attracts independent criminal liability upon dishonour.
No Merger of Causes of Action
The Court clearly held that multiple cheques do not merge into a single cause of action simply because they are linked to one transaction.
Nature of Cheques—Question of Fact
Whether the cheques were issued as:
alternative cheques,
substitute cheques, or
additional/security cheques
is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be decided in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC and must be examined during trial.
Statutory Presumption & Burden of Proof
The Court reiterated the statutory
presumption under Sections 138 and 139
NI Act that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability.
👉 The burden to rebut this presumption lies squarely on the accused, and such rebuttal must be established by leading evidence at trial, not at the stage of quashing.
ChequeBounce#Section138NIAct#NegotiableInstrumentsAct#ChequeDishonour
#CriminalLiability#CauseOfAction#LawyersInBathinda #AdvocatesInBathinda #LawyersBathinda #AdvocateBathinda #LegalHelpBathinda #BathindaAdvocates #BathindaLawyers #LegalServicesBathinda #LawyersPunjab #AdvocatesPunjab #LegalHelpPunjab #PunjabLegalExperts #LegalAdviceIndia #IndianLawFirm #LegalAwareness #KnowYourRights #LegalSupport