Summary
The Supreme Court restored a cheque-dishonour conviction that the High Court had overturned in revision. The trial and appellate courts had found issuance and signature proved, and the accused’s stolen-cheque defence had been rejected. No probable basis to rebut the statutory debt presumption was shown. The High Court could not substitute its own perception of the evidence without identifying perversity or another proper ground for revisional interference.
Issues
- Whether the High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction in overturning concurrent findings supporting conviction.
- Whether the accused had rebutted the presumption of a legally enforceable debt or liability.
Provisions considered
- Sections 138 and 139, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881Proved issuance and signature attracted the rebuttable presumption of a legally enforceable debt or liability. A probable defence could rebut it, but bare denial was insufficient on this record. (¶¶ 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22)
- Sections 397 and 401, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Revisional supervision was distinct from a second merits appeal. In the absence of perversity, material misreading or another recognised defect, the High Court could not replace the concurrent evidentiary assessment with its own view. (¶¶ 11, 12, 14, 15, 23)
Held
- Revisional power corrects illegality, impropriety and miscarriage of justice; it ordinarily does not permit reappreciation simply because another view is possible. The High Court identified no sufficient defect in the concurrent findings. (¶¶ 11, 12, 15, 23)
- The cheque’s issuance and the accused’s signature were proved. Bank evidence showed dishonour for insufficient funds rather than signature mismatch; the statutory presumption was therefore rightly drawn. (¶¶ 10, 15, 20)
- Section 139 includes the existence of a legally enforceable debt, but remains rebuttable by a probable defence. Direct defence evidence is not invariably necessary; the accused must nevertheless bring forward circumstances supporting the contrary, rather than merely deny liability. (¶¶ 18, 19, 21)
- Here the stolen-cheque defence had been rejected, no defence evidence was led, and the High Court did not explain how the complainant’s own evidence rebutted the presumption. Its asserted doubt supplied no adequate basis for setting aside conviction. (¶¶ 20, 22, 23)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside. Trial court judgment, affirmed on appeal, restoring conviction under Section 138 with six months’ simple imprisonment and a Rs. 2,50,000 fine reinstated.