Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 · Chapter XIII: S P E C I A L R U L E S O F E V I D E N C E
Section 118: Presumptions as to negotiable instruments
Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:—
(a) of consideration:— that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration;
(b) as to date:— that every negotiable instrument bearing a date was made or drawn on such date;
(c) as to time of acceptance: that every accepted bill of exchange was accepted within a reasonable time after its date and before its maturity;
(d) as to time of transfer:— that every transfer of a negotiable instrument was made before its naturity;
(e) as to order of indorsements:— that the indorsements appearing upon a negotiable instrument were made in the order in which they appear thereon;
(f) as to stamp:— that a lost promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque was duly stamped;
(g) that holder is a holder in due course:— that the holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course : provided that, where the instrutment has been obtained from its lawful owner, or from any person in lawful custody thereof, by means of an offence or fraud, or has been obtained from the maker or acceptor thereof by means of an offence or fraud, or for unlawful consideration, the burden of proving that the holder is a holder in due course lies upon him.
Source: India Code (indiacode.gov.in), the consolidated text published by the Legislative Department, Government of India. Text as updated on India Code on 15 October 2026. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 118
-
Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr.
The present appeal has been filed challenging the ex-parte judgment and order dated 16.04.2009 passed by the High Court acquitting the respondent no.1-accused u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and…
-
State of Lokayuktha Police, Davanagere v. C B Nagaraj
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court setting aside the order of conviction of the respondent u/ss.7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for the demand of…
-
Ashok Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the concurrent findings of guilt and the consequent conviction of the respondent no.2-accused under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
-
The State of Karnataka v. Chandrasha
Issue as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court setting aside the conviction of the respondent-government servant u/ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for…
-
State (NCT) of Delhi v. Rajeev Sharma
Issue arose as to whether the courts below were justified in convicting the petitioners u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for dishonour of cheques and sentencing them to six months of simple imprisonment…
-
Sri Sujies Benefit Funds Limited v. M. Jaganathuan
In order to partly discharge the loan amount, a cheque was issued by the respondent-accused for a sum of Rs.19,00,000/-. However, the cheque was returned with the endorsement ‘Account Closed’. Whether a discrepancy…
-
Sri Dattatraya v. Sharanappa
Whether the High Court had rightly affirmed the acquittal of the respondent in a complaint case moved for the offence punishable u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by its judgment dated 03.03.2023.
-
M/S Rajco Steel Enterprises v. Kavita Saraff and Another
Issue arose as to whether the cheques were issued in discharge of a debt and if so, whether the respondent no.1 was able to rebut the presumption in terms of s. 118/139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.
-
Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Appellant-accused convicted u/s.138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, had claimed mismatch of signatures on the cheque in question. His application for comparison of the signature as appearing on the cheque through the…
-
Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh
Since the execution of the cheque is, admittedly, not under dispute, the limited question to be considered, is (i) whether the accused can be said to have discharged his ‘evidential burden’, for the courts below to have…
- Prem Kishore & Ors. v. Brahm Prakash & Ors.
- Rajaram S/O Sriramulu Naidu (Since Deceased) Through L.Rs. v. Maruthachalam (Since Deceased) Through L.Rs
- Kapil Kumar v. Raj Kumar
- Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
- M/S Frost International Limited v. M/S Milan Developers and Builders (P) Limited & Anr.
- Pradeep Kumar and Another v. Post Master General and Others
- K.S. Ranganatha v. Vittal Shetty
- Bhupesh Rathod v. Dayashankar Prasad Chaurasia & Anr.
- Triyambak S. Hegde v. Sripad
- Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited v. Bishal Jaiswal & Anr.
- Sumeti Vij v. M/S Paramount Tech Fab Industries
- Aps Forex Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Shakti International Fashion Linkers & Ors.
- Uttam Ram v. Devinder Singh Hudan & Anr.
- Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
- T.P. Murugan (Dead) Thr. Lrs. v. Bojan
- John K. Abraham v. Simon C. Abraham & Another
- Vijay v. Laxman and Anr.
- M/S. Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
- Central Bank of India v. M/S. Asian Global Ltd. & Ors.
- Rangappa v. Sri Mohan
- Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Daya Sapra
- M/S. Kumar Exports v. M/S. Sharma Carpets
- Noor Aga v. State of Punjab & Anr.
- Mallavarapu Kasivisweswara Rao v. Thadikonda Ramulu Firm and Ors.
- Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee
- M/S. Economic Transport Organisation Etc. v. Dharwad Distt. Khadi Gramudyog Sangh Etc.
- Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Co. v. Amin Chand Peyarelal
- K.P.O. Moideenkutty Hajee v. Pappu Manjooran and Anr.
- Indian Bank v. K. Nataraja Pillai and Anr.