Cheque dishonour presumptions require proof of authority and foundational transaction facts before liability can arise.

Authority to institute a cheque dishonour complaint must be shown by reliable material; where the purported proprietor admits signing as an authorised signatory and lacks documentary proof, a later certificate may be treated with suspicion and is insufficient on its own. The note also reiterates that statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act arise only after the complainant proves the foundational facts of the underlying transaction and cheque liability. On the facts discussed, gaps in proof of delivery and transaction details, together with the unshaken defence material, meant the presumptions could not be invoked and the acquittal was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complainant established that the witness claiming to be the proprietor of the proprietary concern had authority to file the complaint; (ii) Whether the complainant proved the foundational facts of the alleged transaction and issuance of the cheque so as to attract the statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Issue (i): Whether the complainant established that the witness claiming to be the proprietor of the proprietary concern had authority to file the complaint.

Analysis: The witness had admitted in cross-examination that he signed the transaction documents as an authorised signatory and not as proprietor, and that he had no documentary proof of proprietorship. The subsequent certificate produced to support proprietorship was found suspicious in light of the cross-examination and the circumstances in which it was sought to be relied upon. The respondents were entitled to challenge its veracity and seek the original record. The material on record did not satisfactorily establish authority to institute the complaint.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the complainant proved the foundational facts of the alleged transaction and issuance of the cheque so as to attract the statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The evidence did not satisfactorily prove delivery of the goods or the transaction said to underlie the cheque. The cross-examination revealed material gaps in the supporting documents and inconsistencies in the alleged transaction details. The handwriting expert's report was not displaced to the extent necessary to render the defence improbable. In the absence of reliable proof of the foundational facts, the statutory presumptions could not be invoked in favour of the complainant.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was upheld because the complaint was not shown to have been instituted by an authorised person and the complainant failed to prove the transaction and cheque liability.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act arise only after the complainant establishes the foundational facts of the transaction and the authority of the person instituting the complaint.

---