Summary
The Supreme Court upheld reversal of an acquittal for cheque dishonour because the trial court had ignored the statutory presumptions arising from admitted signatures. Bare denial and unrelated evidence about the complainant’s bank debt did not establish a probable defence. While declining additional compensation not sought through a challenge to the High Court judgment, the Court directed payment of the deposited cheque amount with accrued interest and, on the particular facts, dispensed with the managing partner’s imprisonment.
Issues
- Whether ignoring the statutory presumptions justified appellate reversal of the acquittal.
- Whether the defence rebutted those presumptions and what relief should follow the deposit of the cheque amount.
Provisions considered
- Sections 118(a) and 139, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881Admitted signatures activated the presumptions of consideration and discharge of liability. Rebuttal required a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities; the defence evidence and bare denial did not meet that standard. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
Held
- An acquittal should not be reversed merely because another view is possible, but patent legal error, grave miscarriage of justice or perversity can justify interference. The trial court’s failure to apply the statutory presumptions was such an error. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 15)
- The reverse onus was rebuttable on a preponderance of probabilities, rather than by mere possibility or bare denial. Evidence concerning the complainant’s separate credit difficulties did not disprove the appellants’ liability. (¶¶ 16, 17, 19)
- Even the assertion that a voluntarily signed blank cheque had been handed over did not by itself remove the statutory presumption. Cogent material rebutting liability was required. (¶ 18)
- Additional compensation was refused because the complainant had accepted the High Court judgment without seeking that relief there or challenging it. The deposited Rs.11.20 lakh and accrued interest were nevertheless payable to him. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22)
- Considering the voluntary deposit already made in 2018 and the particular circumstances, the Court directed that the managing partner need not undergo the imprisonment awarded. This relief did not disturb the conviction. (¶ 22)
Result
Appeal dismissed on merits, with modification dispensing with the managing partner’s imprisonment and directing transfer of Rs.11.20 lakh with accrued interest to the complainant within two weeks.