Supreme Court to Decide: Is Section 138 NI Act Complaint Maintainable If Cheque Issued for Cash Debt Above ₹20,000?

The Supreme Court of India has agreed to examine a crucial legal issue that has caused conflicting interpretations across different High Courts: Can a cheque dishonour complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) be maintained if the cheque was issued for repayment of a cash loan exceeding ₹20,000, in violation of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

This development is expected to have significant ramifications for cheque bounce cases, commercial transactions, and interpretation of the interplay between the NI Act and the Income Tax Act.

Background of the Case

The controversy stems from a judgment of the Kerala High Court, which held that a debt created through a cash transaction above ₹20,000, in violation of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, cannot be treated as a “legally enforceable debt” under Section 138 of the NI Act, unless there is a valid explanation for the cash transaction.

In the case before the High Court, the accused had issued a cheque towards repayment of such a cash debt. When the cheque bounced, the complainant initiated proceedings under Section 138 NI Act. However, the High Court acquitted the accused, reasoning that:

• Section 269SS IT Act prohibits cash loans or deposits above ₹20,000 unless transacted through banking channels (account transfer, cheque, or draft).
• Therefore, debts arising from such illegal cash transactions cannot be enforced through Section 138 NI Act unless the complainant shows a valid explanation under Section 273B IT Act (which allows exceptions for genuine and unavoidable circumstances).

The High Court remarked:

“Hereafter, if anybody pays an amount in excess of ₹20,000 to another person by cash in violation of the Act 1961, and thereafter receives a cheque for that debt, he should take responsibility to get back the amount. Unless there is a valid explanation for such cash transactions, the doors of the criminal court will be closed for such illegal transactions.”

Supreme Court’s Intervention

Aggrieved by this ruling, the complainant approached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition (SLP).

The petitioner’s key arguments included:

1. Scope of Section 269SS: The prohibition under Section 269SS IT Act is primarily on the person accepting the loan or deposit in cash, not on the lender providing money. Therefore, the creditor should not be penalized by denying recovery rights.
2. Penalty vs. Extinguishment of Debt: Violation of Section 269SS carries a penalty under the Income Tax Act itself. Such a penalty does not invalidate the underlying transaction or extinguish the liability of the debtor.
3. Avoiding Double Jeopardy: If a person already faces penalty under the IT Act for violation of Section 269SS, denying him remedies under the NI Act would amount to a second punishment, infringing the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.
4. Harmonious Interpretation of Statutes: The Income Tax Act and the Negotiable Instruments Act are special statutes with different objectives. While IT Act ensures accountability in financial transactions, the NI Act ensures credibility of cheques as a payment instrument. Both should be harmonized rather than one nullifying the other.
5. Conflicting High Court Views: Several High Courts have taken different stands on this issue. Some courts have allowed cheque dishonour complaints even if the underlying debt arose from a cash loan exceeding ₹20,000, while others have barred such complaints. Hence, an authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court is necessary to resolve the confusion.

Legal Framework Involved

To understand the issue better, let’s examine the key statutory provisions at play:

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

• Provides criminal liability for dishonour of cheques issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability.
• A cheque dishonour complaint can succeed only if the underlying debt is legally valid.

Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961

• Prohibits accepting loans or deposits above ₹20,000 in cash.
• Such transactions must be done through account payee cheques, drafts, or electronic transfers.
• Objective: To curb black money and unaccounted cash dealings.

Section 273B of the Income Tax Act

• Provides exceptions where violations of Section 269SS may be excused if the person proves a “reasonable cause.”

Key Questions Before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court’s ruling will need to address several critical legal questions:

1. Does violation of Section 269SS IT Act render the debt itself illegal and unenforceable, or does it merely attract a tax penalty?
2. Can a cheque issued to repay such a cash loan still be treated as issued towards a “legally enforceable debt” under Section 138 NI Act?
3. Should criminal courts under NI Act enforce strict compliance with Income Tax provisions, or should they focus solely on the validity of the debt under general law?
4. Does denying enforcement of such debts under NI Act amount to indirectly creating a penalty beyond what the IT Act already prescribes?

Conflicting Judicial Opinions

Different High Courts in India have taken divergent views on this issue:

• Kerala High Court (Impugned Judgment): Cash loans above ₹20,000, in violation of IT Act, are not enforceable under NI Act.
• Madras High Court: Held that violation of Section 269SS does not automatically invalidate the debt; cheque bounce complaints remain maintainable.
• Bombay High Court: Similar view that the IT Act prescribes a penalty, but does not render the underlying contract void.

This divergence has created legal uncertainty, making the Supreme Court’s ruling all the more significant.

Potential Impact of the Judgment

The forthcoming ruling is expected to have wide-ranging consequences:

1. Cheque Bounce Litigation: Thousands of pending cases under Section 138 NI Act may be directly affected, especially where loans were advanced in cash.
2. Commercial Transactions: Small businesses and individuals often rely on cash dealings due to lack of banking facilities. A ruling against cash-based debts could severely impact such transactions.
3. Black Money Concerns: On the flip side, recognizing cash-based debts under NI Act may be seen as legitimizing transactions conducted in violation of the IT Act, thereby undermining efforts to curb black money.
4. Consistency Across Jurisdictions: A clear Supreme Court ruling will settle the ongoing confusion across High Courts, providing uniformity and certainty.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s upcoming decision on whether a cheque issued for repayment of a cash loan above ₹20,000 amounts to a legally enforceable debt under Section 138 NI Act is poised to be a landmark ruling. At its core, the issue requires harmonizing the objectives of two different laws—the Income Tax Act, which seeks to regulate high-value cash transactions, and the Negotiable Instruments Act, which aims to uphold the credibility of cheques.

The judgment will determine whether violation of tax provisions should extinguish private rights under the NI Act or whether such violations should remain confined to tax penalties. Whatever the outcome, the ruling will have a profound impact on cheque dishonour litigation, commercial practices, and the interpretation of financial laws in India.

Also Read

Delhi Court Grants Bail in False Promise of Marriage Rape Case: Not a ‘Situationship’ but a Consensual Relationship

Delhi High Court: Spouse Can Sue Partner’s Lover for Damages in “Alienation of Affection” Cases