Statutory presumption of liability under negotiable instruments law stands when cheque and signature are admitted, with service of notice proved.
Admission of the cheque and the accused's signature triggered the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that it was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable liability, and the accused failed to rebut that presumption with credible evidence; the revisional court therefore found no perversity or illegality warranting interference. Service of the demand notice was also proved because it was sent to the admitted address and the postal acknowledgment bore the accused's signature, with no convincing explanation for the alleged misuse. In these circumstances, the conviction under Section 138 was sustained and the revision petition failed.
Issues: (i) Whether the cheque was issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability and the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stood rebutted; (ii) Whether the demand notice was duly served on the accused so as to sustain conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Issue (i): Whether the cheque was issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability and the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stood rebutted.
Analysis: The cheque belonged to the accused and her signature on it was admitted. In such circumstances, the presumption that the cheque was issued in discharge of a liability arose. The accused failed to rebut that presumption by acceptable evidence. A bare defence that the cheque had been misused, without supporting material, was insufficient. The limited revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not justify interference with concurrent findings unless perversity or illegality was shown.
Conclusion: The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not rebutted and the finding that the cheque was issued towards discharge of liability was upheld.
Issue (ii): Whether the demand notice was duly served on the accused so as to sustain conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Analysis: The notice was sent to the address admitted by the accused, and the postal acknowledgment bore her signature. A minor variation in signature did not displace the finding of service, especially when the accused offered no convincing explanation or any action against the alleged misuse of the cheque and notice. The surrounding circumstances supported the conclusion that the accused had knowledge of the notice.
Conclusion: Service of notice was proved and the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was sustainable.
Final Conclusion: The concurrent conviction and sentence were left undisturbed, and the revision petition failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Admission of the cheque and signature raises the statutory presumption of liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which can be displaced only by credible rebuttal evidence; absent such rebuttal and in the presence of proved service of notice, conviction under Section 138 stands.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
