Summary
The Court restored the cheque-dishonour conviction but substituted a Rs.2.5 lakh fine, payable within three months, with six months’ simple imprisonment in default and Rs.2.4 lakh compensation to the complainant. Admitted signatures attracted the statutory presumptions, which the accused failed to rebut even on a preponderance of probabilities. The High Court wrongly accepted an unsupported coercion story first advanced in revision and examined property-agreement details beyond their limited evidentiary role. The long lapse of time and transaction’s circumstances justified modifying sentence.
Issues
- Whether the admitted cheque signature attracted presumptions of consideration and debt, and whether the accused rebutted them.
- Whether the High Court’s revisional interference and the original sentence could stand.
Provisions considered
- Sections 118(a) and 139, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881Admitted execution attracted rebuttable presumptions of consideration and discharge of debt. Rebuttal required a probable defence, which could arise from either side’s material without the accused necessarily testifying. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20)
- Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881The conviction was restored, while the sentence was modified in the circumstances to an enhanced fine with default imprisonment and compensation. (¶¶ 3, 21, 22)
Held
- The admitted signatures on the cheque and agreement attracted the presumptions of consideration and discharge of debt. Rebuttal is assessed on a preponderance of probabilities and may rely on the complainant’s material; the accused need not enter the witness box. Whether a probable defence exists depends on the particular record. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17)
- The story that an advocate’s junior used a dominant position to obtain signatures was first advanced in revision. It had no supporting suggestion or admission at trial, no response to the demand notice and no foundation in the accused’s earlier explanation or appeal. The surrounding conduct also contradicted it. The presumptions remained unrebutted even under the applicable probability standard. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 20)
- The agreement was evidence of the transaction and advance whose partial repayment the cheque represented. The High Court’s scrutiny of property particulars as though deciding specific performance exceeded that limited issue, and its acceptance of a new unsupported defence did not justify revisional interference with the concurrent conviction. (¶¶ 17, 18, 20)
- Conviction was restored. Given the financial-distress background, failed sale transaction and more than two decades elapsed, the substantive imprisonment and original fine were replaced by a Rs.2.5 lakh fine payable within three months. Default would attract six months’ simple imprisonment; Rs.2.4 lakh of the fine was payable to the complainant as compensation. (¶¶ 21, 22)
Result
Appeals partly allowed; conviction restored. Fine of Rs.2.5 lakh within three months, six months’ simple imprisonment in default, with Rs.2.4 lakh payable as compensation.