Cheque dishonour complaints: Section 139 presumption sustains process, and witness-list omission is a curable irregularity absent prejudice.

At the stage of process in a cheque dishonour complaint, an express averment that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability is not indispensable where the foundational facts attract the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; the accused may rebut that presumption at trial, so the complaint was not quashed on this ground. Omission to file the list of prosecution witnesses with the complaint was treated as a curable procedural irregularity, not a jurisdictional defect, and it did not vitiate issuance of process absent pleaded prejudice or failure of justice. The challenge to process therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is vitiated at the threshold because it does not expressly aver that the cheque was received in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability; and (ii) whether omission to file the list of prosecution witnesses along with the complaint under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 invalidates the issuance of process.

Issue (i): Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is vitiated at the threshold because it does not expressly aver that the cheque was received in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability.

Analysis: The complaint was examined in the light of the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which presumes, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received it for discharge, in whole or in part, of a debt or other liability. The absence of an express averment in the complaint, by itself, was held insufficient to defeat the complaint at the stage of issuance of process. Support was drawn from the settled principle that the presumption operates once the foundational facts of the dishonoured cheque are shown, leaving the accused to rebut the presumption in the course of trial.

Conclusion: The complaint was not held to be non-maintainable on this ground, and the objection was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether omission to file the list of prosecution witnesses along with the complaint under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 invalidates the issuance of process.

Analysis: The omission to supply the list of witnesses was treated as an irregularity, not a jurisdictional defect. The Court held that such omission does not vitiate the proceedings unless it has occasioned prejudice or a failure of justice. Reliance was placed on the curable nature of such defects and on the power of the Court to permit later filing of the witness list before the complainant leads evidence. In the absence of any pleaded prejudice, the objection was found untenable.

Conclusion: The omission to file the list of prosecution witnesses was held to be curable and not a ground to quash the process.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the order issuing process failed, as neither the alleged absence of an averment regarding debt or liability nor the non-filing of the witness list warranted interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of process in a cheque dishonour complaint, the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 supplies the required foundation for liability, and a defect in filing the witness list is only a curable irregularity unless prejudice or failure of justice is shown.

---