Cheque presumption and revisional restraint under the Negotiable Instruments Act where the defence lacked supporting material.

An admitted cheque raises the statutory presumption of liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and that presumption is displaced only by a probable defence supported by cogent material; a bare alternate explanation without bank records or other supporting evidence is insufficient. A complaint is not rendered invalid merely because the firm is not separately arraigned where the pleadings and evidence show prosecution of the accused in their individual capacity and the necessary factual averments connect the accused to the transaction. Revisional interference is unavailable absent perversity, misreading of evidence, or jurisdictional error, and concurrent conviction and sentence were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner rebutted the statutory presumption arising from the admitted issuance of cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. (ii) Whether the complaint was not maintainable for want of arraignment of the firm under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. (iii) Whether interference in revision was warranted with the concurrent findings and sentence.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner rebutted the statutory presumption arising from the admitted issuance of cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The cheques and signatures were admitted. The defence that the cheques were issued in an earlier year and not towards the transaction pleaded by the complainant was not supported by bank records or other cogent material. The documents relied upon by the petitioner did not probabilise the defence, and the admission regarding the complainant's capacity to advance money further weakened the challenge. The mere assertion of an alternate version was insufficient to dislodge the statutory presumption.

Conclusion: The petitioner did not rebut the presumption, and the finding on liability was upheld against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the complaint was not maintainable for want of arraignment of the firm under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The complaint specifically alleged that the petitioner and others were partners and that the petitioner had personally approached the complainant and issued the cheque. The objection regarding non-joinder of the firm was not raised at the trial stage and the pleadings and evidence showed prosecution of the accused in their individual capacity on the stated factual foundation. The requisite averments connecting the petitioner to the transaction were treated as sufficient in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The complaint was held maintainable, and the objection under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 failed against the petitioner.

Issue (iii): Whether interference in revision was warranted with the concurrent findings and sentence.

Analysis: The trial court and appellate court had assessed the oral and documentary evidence and recorded concurrent findings. No perversity, misreading of evidence, or jurisdictional error was shown to justify revisional interference. The sentence was also found not to warrant interference in view of the lapse of time and the nature of the proceedings.

Conclusion: No ground for revisional interference or sentence reduction was made out, against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were left undisturbed, and the revision failed in entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, an admitted cheque raises a presumption of liability that can be displaced only by a probable defence supported by material evidence, and revisional interference is unavailable absent perversity or jurisdictional error.

---