Section 138 NI Act — Jurisprudence
Recent Authorities
Green tags mark rulings confirmed against published reports on 22 Oct 2026. Amber tags are well-known authorities listed from memory; check the citation and holding before you cite them in a pleading.
Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar
Verified2025 INSC 1158
Once the signature is admitted, ss.118 and 139 presumptions arise. Attacking the complainant's capacity without evidence does not rebut them. A cash loan above ₹20,000 stays enforceable despite s.269SS of the Income Tax Act. No hearing of the accused before cognizance. Failure to reply to the notice supports an adverse inference. Nationwide guidelines on e-service of summons, complaint synopsis, questioning under s.251, interim compensation and revised compounding costs, to apply from 1 Nov 2025.
Sumit Bansal v. MGI Developers and Promoters
Verified2026 INSC 40
Each dishonour that completes the statutory sequence gives a separate cause of action. Several cheques from one transaction do not merge into one, and separate complaints on cheques presented and noticed separately are maintainable.
Renuka v. State of Maharashtra
Verified2026 INSC 327
Where the basic ingredients of s.138 are made out, the s.139 presumption is rebutted only at trial. Sessions Court and High Court were wrong to knock out a complaint at the process stage on a plea of no enforceable debt. Limits early quashing on merits defences.
Anilkumar Manohar Devadhar v. Praveen Adivayya Hiremath
Verified2026 INSC 452
Set aside a High Court revision order that cut a conviction to payment of the cheque amount alone, with no imprisonment or interest. The Court recorded a settlement proposal and gave time to pay. Shows both the sentencing exposure and the room for settlement.
Kuntegowda v. Thurubaiah
VerifiedSupreme Court of India, 2025
Mere denial does not rebut the ss.118 and 139 presumptions once the signature is admitted. A revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence as an appellate court would. The conviction and ₹9 lakh fine were restored. Check the neutral citation in the reported judgment.
Director liability — company must be arrayed
Check citationSupreme Court of India (settled position)
A director cannot be convicted under s.141 NI Act unless the company itself is also an accused. The complaint must contain specific averments that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the relevant time.
CrPC to BNSS
Proceedings begun on or after 1 July 2024| Subject | CrPC | BNSS |
|---|---|---|
| Examination of complainant | 200 | 223 |
| Postponement of process, inquiry | 202 | 225 |
| Issue of process | 204 | 227 |
| Dispensing with personal attendance | 205 | 228 |
| Substance of accusation stated | 251 | 274 |
| Examination of accused | 313 | 351 |
| Order to pay compensation | 357 | 395 |
| Appeal from conviction | 374 | 415 |
| Suspension of sentence pending appeal | 389 | 430 |
| Levy of fine | 421 | 461 |
| Inherent powers of the High Court | 482 | 528 |
Mapping compiled from memory. Confirm against the bare Act before citing a section number.
NI Act provisions used most
| Section | What it does |
|---|---|
| 118(a), 139 | Presumption of consideration, and of a legally enforceable debt for a cheque the drawer signed. |
| 138 | The offence and its three provisos. Up to two years, fine up to twice the amount, or both. |
| 141 | Liability of companies, and of directors in charge of the business. |
| 142 | Complaint by payee within one month, with condonation, and territorial jurisdiction under 142(2). |
| 143, 143A | Summary trial; interim compensation up to 20 percent. |
| 145, 146 | Evidence on affidavit; presumption of dishonour from the bank's memo. |
| 147, 148 | Compoundable offence; deposit of at least 20 percent in appeal. |