I am sorry to say and with due respect, that Hon Supreme Court has miserably failed even with respect to presumption under S.139.
The bench of the then CJI (cited order also), passed few orders with respect to NI Act, which look more than questionable...
Order 1 : The liability and presumption aspect was not defined and not clarified, but ruled that the said presumption is for legally enforceable debt and liability. Half cooked order.
Order 2 : Regarding compounding, well least said is better about this order. The order said accused can compound even at SC level by paying X % more amount, what if complainant says no to compounding ? (not answered by SC). Compounding is something between accused and complainant, there is no role of court to fix some funny, baseless rates as X% or Y%. What if accused is punished for 1 year, now complainant says come on give me 1 crore I will compound, so ideally the compounding cannot be done after the trial court has passed the final judgement, because it may lead to patent blackmailing by complainant.
Order 3 : The above order.
When the law says that notice must be given by payee or holder etcc... Where is the jurisdiction with SC to overrule this, by such order ?? At the best SC can say by referring to general clause act that proof of dispatch of notice is sufficient compliance, but it cannot rule that no notice required. SC cannot refer the departure of giving notice, SC should realize that affidavit of complainant and treating the same as examination in chief in absence of accused, is a clear departure from criminal law. Law is law, where is the question of departure, SC has the power to declare it ultra vires, but cannot add / delete or give fancy explanations.
Order 4 : Jurisdiction Courts
This is huge, people from Kanyakumari are coming to Delhi to defend. Even CrPC says that a trial court must investigate before taking cognizance against a person not residing in the jurisdiction. Here people are being summoned even when state HC has no jurisdiction over them.
So no notice, no case, period. And we have defense counsels who agree that now no notice is required, court summon is to be treated as notice.
It is most unfortunate that Hon SC is letting lacs of people (50 Lacs + accused under S.138) suffer the ignominy of accused, just to give the respectability to a piece of paper. Courts are to be blamed not the law. Law is perfect and very simple, courts have goofed it up. It is embarrassing that S.139 is not rightly interpreted by the courts, even SC. It is unbelievable that if accused admits his signature than it is almost proved against him that he issued the cheque to clear the liability amount as stated in the cheque, without any proof from prosecution. This interpretation violates many sections of IPC etc.