Summary
The Court upheld reversal of an acquittal for cheque dishonour. The complainant established the cheque transaction and attracted the statutory presumption, which the drawer could rebut on a preponderance of probabilities. His claim that signatures and cheque leaves were obtained by force was not a probable defence on this record, particularly after the same alleged incident had failed in separate criminal proceedings. Presentation within the cheque’s validity did not justify an adverse inference merely because it was not immediate. The conviction and monetary directions remained effective.
Issues
- Whether the drawer raised a probable defence sufficient to rebut the statutory presumptions.
- Whether the trial acquittal could stand on the alleged coercion and timing of presentation.
Provisions considered
- Sections 118(a) and 139, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881The established cheque transaction attracted rebuttable presumptions; the defence had to meet a probability standard rather than prove innocence beyond reasonable doubt. (¶¶ 8-12, 17)
Held
- Once the relevant execution and transaction were established, the statutory presumptions operated until rebutted. The accused could rely on his own evidence, the complainant’s material or surrounding circumstances to raise a probable defence and need not necessarily enter the witness box. (¶ 8-11)
- The complainant had tendered evidence of issuance and discharged the initial burden. Non-examination of the promissory-note witness did not, in the overall evidentiary setting, defeat the cheque case as the trial court assumed. (¶ 12)
- Presentation within validity could not be treated as suspicious merely because the cheque was presented later than its stated date. The alleged coercion incident had also been examined in separate proceedings ending in the complainant’s final acquittal, with the supporting allegations rejected. (¶ 13-16)
- On these facts, the renewed coercion account and improved evidence did not constitute a probable defence. Prior financial dealings and the other circumstances supported the complainant’s transaction. The Court did not announce that every prior acquittal conclusively determines every later statutory defence. (¶ 17)
- The trial acquittal was unjustified on this record, and the High Court’s reversal and conviction required no interference despite its limited reasoning. (¶ 18-19)
Result
Appeal dismissed, parties bearing their own costs. High Court conviction, Rs 4 lakh compensation and Rs 5,000 fine with the respective default sentences maintained.