Section 140 explained: this guide covers what it means, who it applies to, the step-by-step process, documents required, fees, due dates and penalties in India — so you can stay compliant with confidence and avoid costly mistakes.
Section 140 closes one specific defence in a prosecution under Section 138: the drawer cannot say that he had no reason to believe, when he issued the cheque, that it might be dishonoured on presentment. As per the consolidated text consulted, the section is a single sentence.
It shall not be a defence in a prosecution for an offence under Section 138 that the drawer had no reason to believe when he issued the cheque that it may be dishonoured on presentment for the reasons stated in that section. In other words, a drawer who issued the cheque cannot escape by saying he honestly expected the account to be funded. Section 140 closes only that one plea; it does not remove the other points the Act itself makes relevant, such as the conditions in Section 138.
What Section 140 says
The text: "It shall not be a defence in a prosecution for an offence under section 138 that the drawer had no reason to believe when he issued the cheque that the cheque may be dishonoured on presentment for the reasons stated in that section."
The words "for the reasons stated in that section" point back to Section 138, under which a cheque is dishonoured because the amount standing to the credit of the account is insufficient to honour the cheque, or because it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank. The offence itself, the notice and the periods are in our existing post on Section 138, and this article does not repeat them.
The plea that is shut out
Imagine a drawer who writes: "When I wrote this cheque I was sure a customer's payment would reach my account the next day; I had no reason to believe it would bounce." Section 140 says this belief, even if honestly held, is not a defence. The section is about what the drawer believed at the time of issue. It removes the argument that the drawer lacked reason to believe in dishonour.
For a business owner the practical message is simple: do not issue a cheque on an account unless the money will be there when the cheque is presented. If you need help with a notice that follows a returned cheque, a reply to legal notice service can help you respond within the periods set by the Act.
What Section 140 does not say
The text of the section is short, and it is worth being careful about what it does not do.
| Point | What the text says |
|---|---|
| Which defence is closed | That the drawer had no reason to believe, when he issued the cheque, that it may be dishonoured on presentment for the reasons stated in Section 138 |
| Other defences | Not mentioned. Section 140 does not list or close any other defence |
| Presumption | Not mentioned. The presumption in favour of the holder is in Section 139 and has its own wording |
| Conditions of the offence | Not mentioned. The conditions in the proviso to Section 138 stand on their own |
| Proof or standard | Not mentioned |
So Section 140 does not say the drawer has no defence at all. It also does not say that every condition under Section 138 is taken as met. For example, whether the cheque was presented within the period in the proviso, whether a notice was given within the period, and whether the debt or liability was a legally enforceable one are matters that Section 138 itself raises. Our guide to defence in a Section 138 case discusses grounds and strategy.
Why a section like this exists
The text gives no reason for Section 140, so this is explanation only, not a statement of purpose. Section 138 makes the return of a cheque for insufficiency of funds an offence on stated conditions. A defence based only on the drawer's state of mind at the time of issue would be easy to raise and hard to test. Section 140 removes it and keeps the focus on the conditions the Act sets out.
Two examples
Example 1. Aarti Hardware issues a cheque for a supplier's invoice on 1 March, expecting a customer's payment of the same amount to be credited. The payment is delayed and the cheque is returned because the amount in the account is insufficient. When prosecuted under Section 138, Aarti Hardware's owner says he had no reason to believe the cheque would bounce. Under Section 140 this is not a defence.
Example 2. Brij Agencies is prosecuted under Section 138, but it received no written notice of demand within the period set out in the proviso. Section 140 does not help the complainant here, nor does it bar Brij Agencies from raising the point: Section 140 only closes the plea about the drawer's belief at the time of issue. Whether the notice requirement was met is a Section 138 question.
Points to watch
- Time of the belief. The section speaks of what the drawer had reason to believe "when he issued the cheque".
- Only the reasons in Section 138. The reference is to dishonour "for the reasons stated in that section".
- Other pleas are untouched by this section. The text does not close them. For companies, see Section 141 on directors and officers, which has its own proviso.
- No procedure. The text states no procedure, periods, fees or court practice, and neither does this article.
- Check current law. This article rests on a consolidated text stating the position as of 26 December 2015; later amendments are not in the text consulted.
Need help responding to a cheque bounce notice?
If you have received a notice after a cheque was returned, the first task is to read the cheque, the bank's return memo and the notice against Section 138 and its periods. A team that does reply to legal notice work can help you prepare a careful reply before any of those periods run out.
Key takeaways
- Section 140 says the drawer's lack of reason to believe, at issue, that the cheque would be dishonoured is not a defence to a Section 138 prosecution.
- It closes only that one plea; it does not close other points arising under Sections 138 and 139.
- The reasons referred to are those stated in Section 138: insufficient funds, or the cheque exceeding the amount arranged with the bank.
- The text gives no reason for the rule, no procedure and no period.
Read next
- Section 138: cheque bounce (dishonour of cheque)
- Section 139: presumption of legally enforceable debt
- Section 142: cognizance of cheque bounce offence and court jurisdiction
- Section 143: summary trial of cheque bounce cases
- Defence in a Section 138 case: grounds and strategy
Disclaimer: Based on a consolidated text of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 stating the position as of 26 December 2015 and on the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018, as consulted on 2 October 2026. Later amendments and current criminal procedure law should be checked. This article is general information, not legal advice; check the official text before acting.