Cheque dishonour presumption fails where foundational facts are not proved and acquittal is confirmed

Cheques dishonour liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act did not arise because the complainant failed to prove the foundational facts for Sections 118 and 139 to operate. Although the drawer admitted the cheques and signatures, the evidence indicated that the cheques were obtained long before presentation, the complaint lacked particulars of the underlying transaction, and the cheques were not shown to have been presented within the statutory validity period. The defence that they were issued as security remained probable on the evidence. The acquittal was therefore left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the cheque dishonour prosecution was proved so as to warrant interference with the acquittal, and whether the cheques were issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability and presented within the statutory period.

Analysis: The appellant had to establish the foundational facts for attracting liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 could operate. Although the drawer admitted the cheques and signatures, the evidence showed that the cheques had been obtained about two years before presentation, the complaint lacked particulars of the underlying transaction, and there was inconsistency regarding the place of issuance. The earlier connected judgment also made the prosecution version improbable. Since the cheques were not presented within the period of validity, the statutory conditions for initiating action were not satisfied. The defence version that the cheques were issued as security remained probable on the evidence.

Conclusion: The complainant failed to prove that the cheques were issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability or that they were presented within the statutory time limit, and the acquittal required no interference.

Final Conclusion: The conviction appeal was not maintainable on the merits and the acquittal stood confirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: The statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arise only on proof of the foundational facts that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability and was presented in accordance with Section 138; absent those facts, the presumption does not sustain a conviction.

---