Cheque dishonour presumptions apply on admitted signature; security cheque defence fails without probable evidence, and proprietor can sue.

In a cheque dishonour prosecution, admitted issuance and signature triggered the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of the complainant, and the drawer's bare claim that the cheque was only a security cheque was insufficient without a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities. Dishonour, notice and non-payment having been established, the conviction under Section 138 was upheld. The complaint was also held maintainable because a proprietor can prosecute on behalf of a proprietorship concern when the cheque is issued in the concern's name, and the locus standi objection failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be sustained when the drawer admitted issuance and signature but claimed the cheque was a security cheque and no probable defence was proved; (ii) Whether the complaint was not maintainable for want of locus standi because the cheque was issued in the name of the proprietorship concern and the complaint was filed by the proprietor.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be sustained when the drawer admitted issuance and signature but claimed the cheque was a security cheque and no probable defence was proved.

Analysis: Once issuance of the cheque and the signature thereon stood admitted, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated in favour of the complainant that the cheque was issued towards discharge of a lawful liability. The burden then shifted to the accused to rebut the presumption by raising a probable defence on the standard of preponderance of probabilities. Mere assertion that the cheque was a security cheque, without supporting evidence or material sufficient to create doubt about the existence of the debt or liability, was insufficient. The dishonour, legal notice, and failure to make payment within the stipulated time were all established on the record.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was rightly upheld and the defence of security cheque failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the complaint was not maintainable for want of locus standi because the cheque was issued in the name of the proprietorship concern and the complaint was filed by the proprietor.

Analysis: A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be maintained by the payee or holder in due course. Where the cheque is issued in favour of a proprietorship concern, the proprietor is competent to prosecute the complaint on behalf of the concern. The record showed that the complainant had pleaded and deposed that he was the proprietor of the business concern, and the objection to proprietorship was not substantiated by any contrary material. The challenge to maintainability therefore did not displace the complaint.

Conclusion: The complaint was maintainable and the plea of ing locus standi failed.

Final Conclusion: The revisional court found no jurisdictional or legal error in the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence, and the challenge to the cheque dishonour proceedings was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, admitted issuance of the cheque and signature attracts the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139, which can be displaced only by a probable defence proved on the preponderance of probabilities; a proprietor may maintain the complaint where the cheque is issued in favour of the proprietorship concern.

---