Cheque validity is determined by its presentation date, not the bank’s later return date.

The complainant alleged that the accused issued a cheque for ₹4,75,000 towards repayment of an investment.

The cheque, dated 31 January 2017, was dishonoured for insufficient funds, and the complainant initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act).

The Trial Court convicted the accused and imposed a fine, but the First Appellate Court reversed the conviction and acquitted him, holding that the cheque had not been presented within its validity period.

The complainant appealed, contending that the cheque had been presented on 27 April 2017, while 18 May 2017—the date relied on by the First Appellate Court—was the date of the bank’s return endorsement.

Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in setting aside the conviction and acquitting the accused on the ground that the cheque was not presented within its validity period?

Section 138 of the NI Act requires, among other things, that a cheque be presented within its period of validity and be dishonoured for a qualifying reason.

Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act raise presumptions in favour of the holder regarding consideration and the discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability; the accused may rebut those presumptions.

No precedent was cited.

The High Court found that the cheque itself bore an endorsement showing presentation on 27 April 2017, within its validity period.

The bank endorsement dated 18 May 2017 recorded the cheque’s return, not its presentation; the First Appellate Court had treated the return date as the presentation date and therefore erred in finding the presentation untimely.

The First Appellate Court had otherwise accepted that the complainant proved the ingredients of Section 138.

The accused did not dispute issuance of the cheque or his signature, and had neither entered the witness box nor elicited evidence in cross-examination sufficient to rebut the statutory presumptions.

The High Court accordingly held that the acquittal could not stand.

It set aside the acquittal dated 24 December 2021 and confirmed the Trial Court’s conviction and sentence dated 3 December 2018.