Unsubstantiated GD Entry Can't Rebut NI Act Presumption

General Diary Entry Insufficient to Rebut Section 139 Presumption

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that a solitary General Diary (GD) entry recording the loss of a cheque does not constitute sufficient evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of issuance and entitlement under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The burden remains on the accused to produce credible, corroborative material to establish that the instrument was not issued for any legally enforceable debt or liability.

The accused in this case claimed that the dishonoured cheque was reported lost in a police station GD prior to the alleged date of presentation, thereby arguing that no liability arose. The Court examined the evidentiary weight of GD entries, noting that such entries are unilateral, unsworn statements made by a party without cross-examination or independent verification. Absent supporting evidence like a formal police complaint, investigation, or documentary trail, the Court held that the entry could not dislodge the statutory presumption favouring the holder of the cheque.

The Court stated: 'A GD entry, while admissible under Section 53 of the Indian Evidence Act, is inherently weak unless supported by material showing follow-up action or independent corroboration. It cannot by itself rebut the presumption u/s 139 of the NI Act.'

This decision highlights evidentiary standards in NI Act defences based on non-issuance or loss. Legal practitioners must advise clients to create and preserve a documented trail—such as formal police reports, internal records, or witness evidence—when relying on loss of instruments. The ruling strengthens the evidentiary foundation required to challenge a presumption under Section 139.