Model Question Paper – Negotiable _ 100 Marks (Mains)

Posted on February 10, 2026 by Admin

MODEL NEGOTIABLE LAW MAINS EXAMINATION

Time: 3 Hours
Maximum Marks: 100

INSTRUCTIONS

All questions are compulsory.
Answers must be precise, legal, and supported by case-law.
Credit will be given for structure, clarity, and authority.

SECTION – A (20 MARKS)

(Answer any TWO – 10 marks each)

Q1. Discuss the scope and object of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. What are the essential ingredients of the offence?

Model Answer

Object:
Section 138 was inserted to enhance the credibility of commercial transactions and to ensure faith in banking operations.

Essential Ingredients (Kusum Ingots v. Pennar Peterson, 2000):

Cheque drawn by accused on account maintained by him
Issued for legally enforceable debt or liability
Presentation within validity period
Dishonour due to insufficiency of funds or analogous reasons
Statutory notice within 30 days
Failure to pay within 15 days

Nature:
Strict liability offence with rebuttable presumptions under Sections 118 and 139.

Q2. Explain the concept of presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. How can the accused rebut such presumption?

Model Answer

Presumptions:

Section 118(a): Presumption of consideration
Section 139: Presumption that cheque was issued for discharge of debt

Nature:
Mandatory but rebuttable.

Standard of Proof:
Preponderance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt.

Case-law:

Rangappa v. Mohan (2010) – Presumption includes existence of debt
Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa (2019) – Accused can rely on complainant’s evidence

SECTION – B (30 MARKS)

(Answer any TWO – 15 marks each)

Q3. Discuss vicarious liability of directors under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act with the help of judicial precedents.

Model Answer

Principle:
Criminal liability is personal; vicarious liability must be specifically pleaded and proved.

Conditions (SMS Pharmaceuticals v. Neeta Bhalla, 2005):

Company must be accused
Accused must be in charge of and responsible for conduct of business
Basic averment mandatory

Managing Director:
Deemed liable.

Landmark Case:
Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels (2012) – Company must be arraigned.

Conclusion:
Mechanical impleadment of directors impermissible.

Q4. Whether dishonour of cheque for “stop payment” instructions attracts Section 138 of the NI Act? Discuss with case-law.

Model Answer

Yes, if legally enforceable debt exists.

Case-law:

Modi Cements v. Kuchil Kumar Nandi (1998)
Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat (2012)

Principle:
Drawer cannot defeat Section 138 by issuing stop-payment instructions after issuing cheque.

SECTION – C (30 MARKS)

(Problem-Based – Answer any ONE)

Q5. CASE STUDY (30 MARKS)

A Pvt. Ltd. company issued a cheque through its Managing Director towards repayment of loan. The cheque was dishonoured with endorsement “account closed”. Notice was sent but returned “unclaimed”. Complaint was filed only against the Managing Director, not the company. During trial, the accused pleaded that the cheque was issued as security.

Decide the maintainability of the complaint.

Model Answer

Issues:

Whether account closed dishonour attracts Section 138
Validity of notice
Liability of Managing Director without company
Effect of security cheque

Findings:

Dishonour:
Account closed is covered (Laxmi Dyechem).
Notice:
Unclaimed notice = deemed service (C.C. Alavi Haji).
Company not arraigned:
Complaint not maintainable (Aneeta Hada).
Security cheque:
Covered if liability exists (Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao).