The Calcutta High Court held that an uncorroborated general diary entry reporting a lost cheque cannot rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Uncorroborated GD Entry Fails to Rebut NI Act Presumption
The Calcutta High Court has ruled that a standalone general diary (GD) entry declaring a cheque lost does not suffice to rebut the statutory presumption of issuance and due execution under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, 1881.
The court observed that a GD entry is a unilateral, unverified statement made to police and lacks evidentiary value in the absence of corroboration such as a police complaint, FIR, or recovery record.
A bare note in the GD cannot be elevated to rebut the statutory presumption available to the holder in due course,the bench held, stressing that the defense must produce concrete evidence to dislodge the presumption under Section 139.
The judgment reaffirms the protective framework for cheque recipients under the NI Act. Courts have consistently held that mere assertion of loss without supporting proof does not absolve liability, particularly when the cheque is later presented dishonored.
For legal practitioners, this decision underscores the importance of challenging weak defenses in NI Act prosecutions. Accused parties must provide credible, independent evidence—such as a formal complaint or non-tracing of the instrument—to overcome the Section 139 presumption. Routine GD entries without follow-up actions are no longer viable defenses.
