Summary
The Supreme Court affirmed cheque dishonour convictions after the High Court reversed acquittal. The supplier proved delivery through invoices, transport particulars and witness evidence, while the drawer failed to rebut the statutory presumption of consideration and enforceable liability. Rebuttal required only a probable defence, which could arise from circumstances or the complainant’s material; bare denial and the accused’s Section 313 statement did not suffice on these facts.
Issues
- Whether the statutory cheque presumptions were rebutted and the High Court justified in reversing acquittal.
Provisions considered
- Sections 118(a), 138 and 139, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881Proof of issuance and the supporting transaction raised rebuttable presumptions of consideration and enforceable liability, which remained unrebutted. (¶ 13-22)
- Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The accused’s explanatory statement was not substantive defence evidence sufficient by itself to rebut the established case here. (¶ 21)
Held
- The presumption under Section 139 includes legally enforceable debt or liability. The accused’s rebuttal burden is a preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt; direct defence evidence is not invariably necessary and circumstances or the complainant’s own material can establish a probable defence. (¶ 13-17)
- The supplier proved the sales, delivery, cheques, dishonour and statutory notices through documentary and oral evidence. The drawer neither responded nor produced a probable explanation rebutting liability; her Section 313 denial alone did not achieve that purpose. (¶ 18-21)
- The authority concerning advance cheques for cancelled purchases was distinguishable from proven delivery of goods in this case. The High Court’s convictions required no interference. (¶ 22-24)
Result
Appeals dismissed; bail bonds cancelled and appellant to pay the fine or serve the sentence in accordance with the High Court judgment.