Section 140

Section 140 seals a critical gap that could otherwise render Section 138 unenforceable. Without it, every accused drawer would simply claim they genuinely believed sufficient funds were available — making Section 138 a provision that only catches the malicious and lets the negligent escape. **What the section does:** It specifically bars one particular defence — 'I had no reason to believe the cheque would be dishonoured.' The drawer cannot escape liability by claiming good faith belief in fund availability. This makes Section 138 a strict liability offence with respect to the subjective mental state of the drawer at the time of issue. **Why strict liability here:** The legislature's policy choice was deliberate. A cheque is a promise to pay on demand. The drawer is in the best position to know their account balance, anticipated credits, and overdraft arrangements. Allowing a good-faith defence would incentivise casual cheque-issuance and erode confidence in the banking system — the precise evil the 1988 amendment was designed to prevent. **What Section 140 does NOT bar:** The section only bars the specific defence of 'no reason to believe.' It does not bar all defences. The accused can still argue: (a) no legally enforceable debt existed (rebutting Section 139); (b) notice was defective or not received; (c) the cheque was forged or presented fraudulently; (d) the cheque was given as security and no present debt existed; (e) the complaint is time-barred; (f) the cheque was not signed by the accused. The section narrows, but does not eliminate, the available defences. **Relationship with mens rea:** Indian courts have confirmed that Section 138 is a strict liability offence in the sense that no specific criminal intention (mens rea) needs to be proved for the basic offence. However, the accused retains the right to dispute the factual ingredients — it is only the subjective 'good faith' defence that Section 140 eliminates.