Home · Guides · updated 2 September 2026

WhatsApp evidence in a cheque bounce case

A Section 138 complaint is rarely lost on the cheque. It is lost on the transaction behind the cheque — and in most small and mid-sized dealings, the only record of that transaction is a conversation.

What the complainant uses it for

Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act presumes that the cheque was received for the discharge of a debt or liability. The complainant therefore does not start from nothing — but the presumption is rebuttable, and once the accused has led evidence towards a defence, the underlying transaction has to hold up. That is where the conversation earns its place.

• The transaction itself. The request for the loan or the goods, the terms, the amount, the date.
• The transfer. Payment screenshots and confirmations sent at the time, which tie to a bank statement.
• Acknowledgment of liability. A message accepting that money is owed, or apologising for delay, or promising to pay by a date, is the single most useful entry a complainant can produce.
• The purpose of the cheque. Messages about it being handed over, and what for, meet the security-cheque defence directly.
• Part payment, which contradicts a defence that nothing was ever owed.
• The demand, and the response or silence that followed it.

What the accused uses it for

• Cheque given as security. Contemporaneous messages describing the cheque as security, or as a blank cheque held against performance, go directly to rebutting the presumption.
• Repayment. Transfers, receipts and acknowledgments after the cheque was given.
• A different amount. Messages showing the sum actually advanced, where the cheque was completed for more.
• No enforceable debt. Conversations showing the money was a gift, an investment, or a transaction of another character.
• Misuse of a cheque given for a closed or different transaction, evidenced by the exchange around it.

Both sides need the same thing: the whole exchange

These cases turn on a sequence — ask, transfer, delay, promise, cheque, dishonour, demand. Any one message in that sequence is arguable on its own; the sequence is not. Producing the complete conversation for the period, certified, is worth much more than the four messages that look best, and it forecloses the argument that what was left out told a different story. See screenshots and why an export is stronger.

Producing it so it lands

1. Export with media. Payment screenshots, invoices and delivery photographs are usually the corroboration, and a media-free export reduces them to the words media omitted.
2. Number every entry, and cite entry numbers in the complaint or the reply rather than quoting loosely.
3. Prepare a short chronology — date, entry number, what it establishes — alongside the bank statement. A magistrate reading a two-page chronology against a statement is doing the work you want done.
4. Reconcile the chat to the money. Every transfer discussed in the conversation should appear in a statement, and every entry in the statement you rely on should be findable in the conversation.
5. File the certificate and the native file, so the record can be verified rather than taken on trust: filing a chat exhibit.

Points that cost cases

• The messages are with a different person from the drawer. Conversations with an employee, a broker or a family member are not admissions by the drawer. Check who you were actually speaking to.
• Business accounts. Where the dealing was on a WhatsApp Business account or a company number, say so in the certificate particulars, and be able to say who operated it.
• Group conversations of a trade. Common in commodity and supply dealings, and full of third parties. Group chats covers attribution and redaction.
• Deleted entries in the middle of the sequence. Expect them to be raised; count them and state the number.

For dealings that go beyond a single cheque — formation of the contract, variation of terms, delivery disputes — see chat evidence in a commercial dispute.

This guide explains procedure and states the law as we understand it. It is not legal advice, and Aarohan Enterprises is not a law firm. Whether a court admits a particular record, and what weight it gives it, is for that court to decide. Have an advocate settle anything you intend to file.