Cheque Dishonour Liability Sustained Where Sole Proprietorship Was Proved and No Rebuttal Evidence Showed Otherwise.

A cheque dishonour complaint was maintainable where the complainant carried on business as the sole proprietor of the concern in whose name the cheque was issued. The dishonour, statutory notice, and failure to pay within the prescribed time were proved, and no evidence rebutted the complainant's proprietary status. On that basis, the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts disclosed no legal infirmity, and revisional interference was held unwarranted in the Section 138 prosecution.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complainant had established that he was the sole proprietor of the concern in whose favour the cheque was issued, and whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was liable to be interfered with in revision.

Analysis: The cheque was issued in the name of the business concern and its dishonour, the statutory notice, and non-payment within the prescribed time stood established on the record. The only substantial challenge was to the complainant's status and competence to prosecute in the name of the concern. The evidence accepted by the trial court and the appellate court showed that the complainant carried on business under the name and style of the concern, and no evidence was adduced to disprove his status as sole proprietor. In the absence of proof to the contrary, the complaint was maintainable and the concurrent findings did not disclose any legal infirmity warranting revisional interference.

Conclusion: The complainant's status as sole proprietor was proved, the conviction under Section 138 was sustained, and interference in revision was unwarranted.

---