Cheque dishonour presumptions under the NI Act apply, and additional evidence may cure authorization defects on appeal.

Admission of the cheque and the drawer's account triggered the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the defence of misuse of an earlier cheque was found not probable. The finding that the loan had not become due was unsustainable on the facts, so the acquittal under Section 138 could not stand on the merits. At the same time, the complainant's authorization to file the complaint still required examination, and the appellate court allowed additional evidence under Section 391 CrPC to cure the omission and remitted the matter for limited evidence on maintainability.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the acquittal for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was sustainable in law; (ii) Whether the application under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for production of additional evidence deserved to be allowed.

Issue (i): Whether the acquittal for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was sustainable in law.

Analysis: The accused admitted his signature on the cheque and that it belonged to his account, attracting the mandatory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The defence that the cheque was issued in an earlier transaction and misused was found not to be probable. The finding that the loan had not become due was held to be unsustainable on the facts, as the defence had not shown payment of instalments or any basis to treat the cheque presentation as premature. The court, however, noted that the issue of authorization to institute the complaint still required examination through additional evidence.

Conclusion: The acquittal was not sustainable on the merits of the cheque dishonour case, and the accused was held to have committed the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, subject to the pending question of authorization.

Issue (ii): Whether the application under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for production of additional evidence deserved to be allowed.

Analysis: The omitted documents related to the complainant bank's bye-laws and resolution authorizing representation and filing of the complaint. The appellate court held that such omission could be rectified at the appellate stage where the evidence was necessary for deciding the question of maintainability. The accused was to be given an opportunity to challenge the genuineness of those documents, and the matter was therefore required to be remanded for limited evidence on authorization.

Conclusion: The application under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was allowed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part on the merits and the matter was remitted for limited consideration of the complainant's authorization, after permitting additional evidence, before the question of conviction or acquittal could be finally determined.

Ratio Decidendi: Once the accused admits the cheque and its account, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operate, and an appellate court may permit additional evidence under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to cure a material defect affecting maintainability when justice so requires.

---