Cheque dishonour presumption rebutted; unregistered firm could still maintain prosecution under the partnership bar rule.

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed by an unregistered firm was held maintainable because the bar in Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act does not defeat such prosecution. Where execution of the cheque was admitted, the presumption under Section 139 arose, but the accused rebutted it on a preponderance of probabilities through a plausible alternative version supported by reply notice and oral evidence, while the complainant failed to substantiate the alleged transaction with documentary proof. The acquittal was therefore not perverse and did not justify appellate interference.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed by an unregistered firm was maintainable in view of Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932; (ii) Whether the accused had successfully rebutted the statutory presumption and whether the acquittal recorded by the trial court called for interference.

Issue (i): Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed by an unregistered firm was maintainable in view of Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.

Analysis: The complaint was challenged on the footing that the firm was unregistered, but the governing view applied in appeal was that the statutory bar under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 does not prevent prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The objection to maintainability therefore could not succeed.

Conclusion: The complaint was maintainable, and this objection failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the accused had successfully rebutted the statutory presumption and whether the acquittal recorded by the trial court called for interference.

Analysis: Once execution of the cheque was not disputed, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arose. The accused displaced that presumption by showing a plausible alternative version supported by notice reply and oral evidence, while the complainant did not produce documentary proof to substantiate the alleged hiring transaction. The acquittal could not be termed perverse, and no appellate interference was warranted on the settled principles governing acquittal appeals.

Conclusion: The presumption stood rebutted, and the acquittal did not call for interference.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was not restored, and the appeal against acquittal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the statutory presumption on admitted cheque execution can be rebutted on a preponderance of probabilities, and the bar under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 does not defeat maintainability of the complaint by an unregistered firm.

---