Dishonoured cheque

2021 PCrLJ 1527 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 22-A, 22-B & 154Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-FDishonoured chequeDirection to register criminal caseEx-Officio Justice of PeaceJurisdiction

Petitioner was aggrieved of direction issued by Ex-Officio Justice of Peace to Station House Officer of police station concerned to register FIR against petitioner for issuing a cheque which was dishonoured on presenting at Bank

Validity

Cheque was issued in respect of an obligation which was dishonored

No extraneous consideration was allowed under S. 489-F, P.P.C. to be taken into account before it could be triggered, it was in the nature of self-executory provision

As long as a cheque in respect of an obligation was dishonoured upon presentation and an endorsement to such effect was provided by Bank, the offence was complete

Application narrating such occurrence was to be acted upon in terms of S. 154, Cr.P.C.

Cheque and slip provided by bank showing that cheque had been dishonoured was placed before Ex-Officio Justice of Peace

High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Ex-Officio Justice of Peace

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2020 CLD 265 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 118Presumption as to negotiable instrumentsDishonoured chequeEndorsement for considerationBurden of proofScope

Presumption under S. 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is not a conclusive presumption of drawing consideration of a negotiable instrument, rather it is rebuttable in nature and initial burden of proving that the negotiable instrument is executed against consideration is on the plaintiff.

2020 CLD 265 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 118Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXVII, Rr. 1 & 2Summary suits upon bills of exchangePresumption as to negotiable instrumentDishonoured chequeEndorsement for considerationBurden of proofScope

Plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs.5,00,000/- on the basis of dishonoured cheque and claimed that the defendant had borrowed the said amount

Defendant contended that he had issued an open cheque on account of fiscal liability but the liability stood discharged on account of certain transactions and he was liable to pay only Rs. 13,000

Trial Court decreed the suit

Validity

Plaintiff had not mentioned any specific date either in the plaint or in evidence as to when the loan amount was advanced to the defendant

Stance of plaintiff was not believable that just on the request of defendant such a huge amount was advanced without any documentation or even issuance of cheque at that time

Parties had no blood or family relation

Plaintiff contended that cheque was a negotiable instrument and since the defendant had not denied its issuance therefore burden of proof of non-payment of consideration was on the defendant

Presumption under S. 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was not a conclusive presumption of drawing consideration of a negotiable instrument, rather it was rebuttable in nature and initial burden of proving that the negotiable instrument was executed against consideration was on the plaintiff

Plaintiff had failed to discharge the initial onus of passing on Rs. 5,00,000/- to the defendant

Appeal was allowed; impugned judgment and decree was set aside and the suit of plaintiff was dismissed.

2020 MLD 772 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

O. XXXVII, Rr. 1 & 2Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), S. 118Summary suits upon bills of exchangePresumption as to negotiable instrumentDishonoured chequeEndorsement for considerationBurden of proofScope

Plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs.5,00,000/- on the basis of dishonoured cheque and claimed that the defendant had borrowed the said amount

Defendant contended that he had issued an open cheque on account of fiscal liability but the liability stood discharged on account of certain transactions and he was liable to pay only Rs. 13,000

Trial Court decreed the suit

Validity

Plaintiff had not mentioned any specific date either in the plaint or in evidence as to when the loan amount was advanced to the defendant

Stance of plaintiff was not believable that just on the request of defendant such a huge amount was advanced without any documentation or even issuance of cheque at that time

Parties had no blood or family relation

Plaintiff contended that cheque was a negotiable instrument and since the defendant had not denied its issuance therefore burden of proof of non-payment of consideration was on the defendant

Presumption under S. 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was not a conclusive presumption of drawing consideration of a negotiable instrument, rather it was rebuttable in nature and initial burden of proving that the negotiable instrument was executed against consideration was on the plaintiff

Plaintiff had failed to discharge the initial onus of passing on Rs. 5,00,000/- to the defendant

Appeal was allowed; impugned judgment and decree was set aside and the suit of plaintiff was dismissed.

2020 MLD 772 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 118Presumption as to negotiable instrumentsDishonoured chequeEndorsement for considerationBurden of proofScope

Presumption under S. 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is not a conclusive presumption of drawing consideration of a negotiable instrument, rather it is rebuttable in nature and initial burden of proving that the negotiable instrument is executed against consideration is on the plaintiff.

2017 CLD 1593 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 118Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXVII, R. 1Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)Suit for recovery of moneyDishonoured chequeWithholding of evidencePresumption

Plaintiff filed suit against defendant for recovery of money which defendant obtained as loan and executed cheque in favour of plaintiff

Cheque was dishonoured on presentation and defendant did not repay the loan

Plea raised by defendant was that cheque was one of the three blank signed cheques which he had handed over on intervention of a third person

Trial Court decreed suit in favour of plaintiff

Validity

Holder of negotiable instrument was holder in due course unless it was established that same had been obtained by means of fraud or some unlawful consideration

Presumption was that negotiable instrument was issued against consideration unless rebutted

Onus to prove the same was upon person denying consideration

Appellant in order to rebut amount of consideration could have called the third person in witness box to establish that cheque was not issued for consideration

Best evidence was withheld and inference was to be drawn against defendant

Defendant failed to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence or any illegality or infirmity in judgment passed by Trial Court which was otherwise well-reasoned and required no interference

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.