The Calcutta High Court held that an uncorroborated GD entry reporting loss of a cheque does not rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as it amounts to a unilateral statement lacking independent evidence.
GD Entry Insufficient to Rebut NI Act Presumption: Calcutta HC
In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court has held that a mere uncorroborated General Diary (GD) entry reporting the loss of a cheque cannot rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Court observed that such entries are unilateral and lack evidentiary value in the absence of supporting materials.
The Court emphasized that Section 139 creates a presumption of holder-in-due-course status, which can only be rebutted by credible, independent evidence. A standalone GD note, made without verification or contemporaneous proof, fails to meet this threshold. The burden remains on the accused to adduce material evidence to dislodge the statutory presumption.
This decision reinforces the evidentiary hierarchy in cheque bounce cases and cautions against relying solely on police station entries to contest statutory presumptions. Practitioners must ensure that defences under Section 139 are backed by documentary or witness-based corroboration.
Citations
- Section 139, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
