Cheque dishonour presumption: admitted execution and weak coercion defence sustained conviction under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Execution of a cheque and the drawer's signature raised the statutory presumption of legally enforceable liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the complainant's evidence was sufficient to shift the burden. The absence of one witness to the underlying transaction did not displace that presumption, especially where an admitted prior financial relationship existed and the cheque was presented within validity. A plea of coercion and misuse of blank signed papers and cheque leaves was rejected because it failed the preponderance of probabilities standard and was unsupported by cogent material. The SC sustained the conviction and did not restore the trial court's acquittal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the cheque was issued towards discharge of a legally recoverable debt so as to attract the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act; (ii) Whether the defence of coercion and misuse of blank signed papers and cheque leaves constituted a probable defence sufficient to rebut the presumption.

Issue (i): Whether the cheque was issued towards discharge of a legally recoverable debt so as to attract the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis: Once execution of the cheque and the signature of the drawer were established, the statutory presumption of consideration and discharge of liability arose. The complainant had adduced evidence sufficient to shift the evidentiary burden, and the fact that one witness to the underlying transaction was not examined did not, by itself, displace the presumption. The cheque was proved to have been presented within validity, and the circumstances showed an admitted prior financial relationship between the parties.

Conclusion: The presumption operated in favour of the holder of the cheque, and the existence of a legally enforceable liability was accepted.

Issue (ii): Whether the defence of coercion and misuse of blank signed papers and cheque leaves constituted a probable defence sufficient to rebut the presumption.

Analysis: The defence was held not to satisfy the standard of preponderance of probabilities. The alleged incident of forcible obtaining of signatures had already been negatived in the related criminal case, and the same defence was treated as an impermissible improvement in the present proceedings. In the absence of cogent material to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt, the statutory presumption remained unrebutted.

Conclusion: The defence was rejected and did not rebut the presumption under the Act.

Final Conclusion: The conviction recorded by the High Court was sustained and the acquittal ordered by the trial court was not restored.

Ratio Decidendi: In a cheque dishonour prosecution, admitted execution of the cheque raises a rebuttable presumption of legally enforceable liability, and the accused must displace it by a probable defence proved on preponderance of probabilities; a bare plea of coercion or misuse of blank instruments, unsupported by convincing material, is insufficient.

---