Summary
The drawer challenged his cheque-dishonour conviction by questioning the complainant’s financial capacity and alleging loss of a signed cheque. The Court recognised that a probable defence could be established through defence evidence, cross-examination or the complainant’s own material, but found the total evidence insufficient here. It upheld the conviction while replacing the one-year prison term with a five-thousand-rupee fine and directing fifteen thousand rupees in additional compensation.
Issues
- How the drawer could rebut the presumption and challenge the complainant’s financial capacity.
- Whether the evidence established a probable defence in this case.
- Whether the conviction and custodial sentence should be maintained.
Provisions considered
- Section 139, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881The presumption was rebuttable on a preponderance of probabilities. A probable defence could arise from the entire evidentiary record without the accused necessarily entering the witness box. (¶¶ 3, 7, 9-10)
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaConcurrent findings did not absolutely exclude intervention where palpable error caused injustice, but the record here supplied no basis to disturb the conviction. (¶ 11-12)
Held
- The complainant was not required initially to prove financial capacity where the reply to statutory notice had not put that capacity in issue. The accused nevertheless retained the right to establish lack of capacity through independent evidence, the complainant’s material or cross-examination; absence of an earlier challenge did not foreclose the defence. (¶¶ 7, 9)
- The court must assess the whole evidence to decide whether a probable defence rebuts the statutory presumption. Although the High Court had not properly understood the purpose of the bank witnesses, that error did not itself establish a successful defence on the entire record. (¶¶ 7-10, 12)
- The reply acknowledged cordial relations and did not raise the alleged loss of the cheque book. No police or bank complaint proving that loss was produced, and the appellant did not dispute his signature. These circumstances did not justify overturning the conviction. (¶ 10-12)
- The conviction was upheld, but the one-year imprisonment was vacated and replaced by a five-thousand-rupee fine payable within one month, with one month’s simple imprisonment in default. An additional fifteen thousand rupees in compensation was to be deposited within four weeks; the existing seven-lakh-rupee compensation had reportedly already been deposited. (¶ 12-13)
Result
Appeal partly allowed. Conviction upheld; one-year imprisonment replaced by a Rs.5,000 fine, payable within one month with one month’s simple imprisonment in default. Additional compensation of Rs.15,000 was directed to be deposited within four weeks.