Section 146 presumption governs cheque dishonour proof, overriding general evidence rules and sustaining liability under Section 138.

In a prosecution for cheque dishonour under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the special evidentiary scheme prevailed over the general proof requirements of the Evidence Act. The High Court noted that Section 146 raises a presumption of dishonour when the bank slip or memo bears the official mark, so the return memo could not be rejected merely for not being proved under Section 67 of the Evidence Act. As the accused's liability had already been found on the material before the trial court and that finding was not challenged, the dishonour and ingredients of the offence stood proved, and the dismissal of the complaint was held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dismissal of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the ground that the bank return memo was not proved in accordance with Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was sustainable, and whether the dishonour of the cheque and the accused's liability stood proved.

Analysis: The complaint had been filed for dishonour of a cheque issued towards discharge of a debt. The trial court had already recorded a finding on the core factual issue that the cheque was issued by the accused in discharge of liability, and that finding had not been challenged. Under Section 146 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, production of the bank slip or memo bearing the official mark of dishonour raises a presumption of dishonour, and that special provision overrides the ordinary evidentiary requirement relied upon from Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The statutory scheme under Sections 143 and 146 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 therefore governed proof of dishonour, and the return memo could not be discarded on the ground adopted by the trial court. The materials, including the invoices and the prior order reflecting the accused's admission of liability, supported the complainant's case.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the complaint was unsustainable, the cheque dishonour stood proved under the special statutory regime, and the appeal was allowed in favour of the complainant.

Final Conclusion: The complainant succeeded in establishing the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the conviction-related relief directed by the High Court replaced the dismissal ordered by the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the statutory presumption under Section 146 that a bank memo evidences dishonour prevails over the general proof requirements of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

---