Home  /  Negotiable Instruments Act  /  Section 140

Section 140: Defence which may not be allowed in 138

Negotiable Instruments Act • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Bar
Strict Liability
JMFC / MM
Act 1881
Section 139 All 148 Sections of Negotiable Instruments Act Section 141

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 140

Section 140 bars a specific statutory defence, enacting that it shall not be a defence in a prosecution for an offence under Section 138 that the drawer had no reason to believe when they issued the cheque that it would be dishonoured upon presentment.

  • Strict Statutory Liability: Eliminates mens rea (guilty mind) regarding knowledge of account balance; the drawer cannot plead 'I thought my client would deposit funds before clearance'.
  • Bar on Speculative Defences: The drawer's subjective expectation or optimism regarding future bank credits is legally irrelevant.
  • Preservation of Commercial Discipline: Compels drawers to ensure sufficient funds are actually in the account before releasing cheques into commercial circulation.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • P.J. Agro Tech Ltd. v. Water Base Ltd. (2010) 12 SCC 146: The Supreme Court emphasized that Section 140 eliminates subjective belief as a defense, maintaining Section 138 as a strict liability commercial offence.
  • Goapackers v. Mangalore Chits (2001): Affirmed that a drawer cannot plead that they anticipated an incoming remittance from a third party that failed to arrive.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

When representing complainants, cite Section 140 whenever the accused argues 'I expected an RTGS from a client which got delayed'. Under Section 140, this plea is statutory barred as a matter of law, entitling the complainant to immediate conviction if notice was not paid.

Section 139 All 148 Sections of Negotiable Instruments Act Section 141