Cheque Dishonour Presumptions and Revisional Limits upheld despite Lok Adalat settlement terms and blank-cheque defence.

A Lok Adalat settlement did not bar continuation of a Section 138 NI Act prosecution where the terms expressly allowed the complainant to proceed if payment was not made, so the complaint remained maintainable. Admission of signatures on the cheques triggered the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139, and a blank-cheque defence without evidence of repayment or absence of liability was insufficient to rebut them on a preponderance of probabilities. Revisional interference was also unwarranted because concurrent findings are disturbed only for perversity, patent illegality, or non-consideration of material evidence. The conviction, sentence, fine, and compensation were therefore left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the settlement recorded before the Lok Adalat barred continuation of the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. (ii) Whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumptions arising from the admitted signatures on the cheques by setting up the defence of blank cheque and absence of liability. (iii) Whether the revisional court should interfere with the concurrent conviction and sentence.

Issue (i): Whether the settlement recorded before the Lok Adalat barred continuation of the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The settlement terms expressly permitted the complainant to proceed with the complaint if the agreed payments were not made. The arrangement therefore did not attain finality as an executable award extinguishing the criminal prosecution. In the absence of compliance with the settlement, the complaint was contractually left to continue.

Conclusion: The prosecution was not barred and the Lok Adalat settlement did not defeat the complaint.

Issue (ii): Whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumptions arising from the admitted signatures on the cheques by setting up the defence of blank cheque and absence of liability.

Analysis: Once execution of the cheques and the underlying transaction were established, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 operated in favour of the complainant. A signed blank cheque does not by itself negate liability. The accused was required to rebut the presumptions on a preponderance of probabilities, but no evidence was produced to prove discharge of the debt or to dislodge the existence of a legally enforceable liability.

Conclusion: The presumption was not rebutted and the conviction on the cheque dishonour charge was sustained.

Issue (iii): Whether the revisional court should interfere with the concurrent conviction and sentence.

Analysis: Revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and does not permit a fresh reappreciation of evidence as if in appeal. Interference is warranted only where the finding is perverse, wholly unreasonable, or based on non-consideration of material evidence or patent illegality. The concurrent findings of the courts below did not suffer from such infirmity, and the enhanced fine and compensation were also found to be in accordance with settled sentencing principles in cheque dishonour cases.

Conclusion: No interference was called for in revision.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent conviction and sentence were left undisturbed, and the revision failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A signed cheque attracts the statutory presumption of legally enforceable liability, which can be displaced only by a probable defence on preponderance of probabilities, and a revisional court will not upset concurrent findings absent perversity or patent illegality.

---