The Calcutta High Court ruled that an uncorroborated GD entry reporting a lost cheque is insufficient to rebut the statutory presumption of issuance under Section 139 of the NI Act.
GD Entry Alone Can’t Rebut NI Act Presumption: Calcutta HC
The Calcutta High Court has held that a mere General Diary (GD) entry recording the report of a lost cheque, without corroboration through independent evidence, cannot rebut the statutory presumption of issuance under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The decision reinforces the burden on the accused to adduce credible evidence to counter the presumption of cheque issuance for a legally enforceable debt.
Section 139 creates a presumption that a cheque was issued for a legitimate liability. The Court stressed that this presumption can be rebutted only with reliable, objective evidence such as police complaints with investigation records, witness testimony, or documentary proof of non-possession at the relevant time. A unilateral GD entry, made without verification, lacks evidentiary value under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act.
An uncorroborated GD entry is a mere statement by the person accused and does not constitute independent evidence capable of displacing a statutory presumption.
For practitioners, this underscores the need to gather and present tangible evidence—beyond self-serving assertions—when defending against NI Act complaints. Courts will continue to treat Section 139 as a strong shield for complainants, and mere allegations of loss or non-issuance, without proof, will not suffice to escape liability.
Citations
- Calcutta High Court Order, 30 October 2026
