Introduction
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Chapter 1 : Preliminary
Chapter 2 : Of Notes, Bills and Cheques
Chapter 3 : Parties to Notes, Bills and Cheques
Chapter 4 : Of Negotiation
Chapter 5 : Of Presentment
Chapter 6 : Interest
Chapter 7 : Of Discharge from Liability on Notes, Bills and Cheques
Chapter 8 : Of Notice of Dishonour
Chapter 9 : Of Noting and Protest
Chapter 10 : Of Reasonable Time
Chapter 11 : Of Acceptance and Payment for Honour and Reference in Case of Need
Chapter 12 : Of Compensation
Chapter 13 : Special Rules of Evidence
Chapter 14 : Of Crossed Cheques
Chapter 15 : Of Bills in Sets
Chapter 16 : Of International Law
Chapter 17 : Of Penalties in case of Dishonour of certain Cheques for Insufficiency of Funds in the Accounts
Chapter 18 : Of Penalties in case of Dishonour of certain Cheques
Subject Index
Table of Cases

The present fourteenth edition marks more than 15 years of our association with this book as its revising author, which we have been doing since the 9th Edition which was published in the year 2005. The book has attained acclaim and acceptability by its readers from its very inception. After the last edition of the year 2016, some legislative changes have been made in the Negotiable Instruments Act by the Parliament by inserting section 143A and section 148 by Act 20 of 2018. Now, the trial court trying the criminal complaint filed under section 138 of the NI Act may award interim compensation to the complainant up to 20% of the amount of the dishonoured cheque. In addition, the Appellate Court is empowered by section 148 to direct deposit of 25% or more amount of the fine or compensation by Appellant/convicpending appeal subject to the outcome of appeal. Case-laws on these newly added provision have been updated in the present edition. The burden of proof on prosecution and accused in criminal cases is not on a level-playin field. As against the prosecution's rigorous burden of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt the accused is required by law to discharge burden of proving his case on a lighter scale preponderance of probabilities. As is well settled, the presumption under section 139 can rebutted and the standard of proof for doing so is that of 'preponderance of probabilities. the phrase 'preponderance of probability' is not defined anywhere in the Act nor it seems to been defined and explained in any other Act. However, in Punita Rai v State of Jharkhand
another, the expression preponderance of 'probability' has been very well explained as under:
The expression "preponderance of probability" has not been defined in any statute, however, in my opinion, it cannot be mere pretence of an accused. This expression refers to a positive finding on facts which are referable to probability of a situation which is more likely to happen, but it is not just a possibility. An accused can show from evidence of the prosecution or by leading evidence himself that the case set up by him is a probable one. To show that the defence set up by him is probable one the accused must show from the prosecution's evidence or by leading such cogent evidence which would prima-facie disclose a strong probability of the defence set up by him." (Source : https://lawbookshop.net/law-negotiable-instruments-act-comments-case-law-dishonour-cheques-s-k-sarvaria-s-krishnamurthi-aiyar-apoorva-sarvaria.html)