Company authorisation and statutory presumption in cheque dishonour cases remain effective unless rebutted with supporting evidence.

A company may institute a cheque-dishonour complaint through an authorised representative, and a procedural objection to the original authorisation can be cured by substitution of the representative, particularly where the record shows later approval of the person acting for the company. On the merits, a bare denial of issuance or signature does not by itself rebut the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act once the cheque and account connection are shown. The accused must adduce supporting material to displace the presumption of a cheque issued towards a legally enforceable debt; absent such evidence, liability under cheque dishonour law remains established.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the complaint on behalf of the company was maintainable through PW1 on the basis of the company resolution and authorisation; (ii) whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act by denying issuance and signature on the cheque.

Issue (i): Whether the complaint on behalf of the company was maintainable through PW1 on the basis of the company resolution and authorisation.

Analysis: A company can act only through a natural person, and a complaint under the cheque dishonour provisions can be instituted in the name of the company through an authorised representative. A resolution passed by circulation under Section 289 of the Companies Act, 1956 must be circulated to all directors in India and approved by the requisite majority. Even if there was some defect in the original authorisation, the defect could be rectified by subsequent substitution of the person representing the company. The record showed that the trial court itself permitted substitution of PW1 in place of the earlier representative, which cured the objection to representation.

Conclusion: PW1 was competent to represent the company, and the complaint was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act by denying issuance and signature on the cheque.

Analysis: The cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, and the statutory presumption attached once the cheque and signature were shown to be connected to the account holder. A bare suggestion that the cheque had been given blank to another institution and later misused was insufficient to displace the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The denial of signature was not put to the complainant's witness in cross-examination, and the accused's later stand under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could not by itself rebut the presumption. In the absence of supporting evidence, the presumption of a cheque issued towards a legally enforceable debt remained unrebutted.

Conclusion: The accused failed to rebut the presumption, and the offence under Section 138 was established.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside, and the accused was found guilty for cheque dishonour with sentence of fine and default imprisonment.

---