Trusts and cheque dishonour liability: article explains how Section 141 can extend to trustees and limits of revision.

A trust was treated as capable of prosecution for cheque dishonour because the expression "company" in Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was read to include an association of individuals, bringing trustees in charge within potential liability. The note also explains that revisional interference under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is limited to perversity, illegality, or non-consideration of material evidence, and does not permit routine reappreciation of evidence. As the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139, the concurrent conviction and sentence were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a trust can be prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and whether it falls within the expression company under Section 141 of that Act. (ii) Whether the concurrent conviction and sentence called for interference in revisional jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether a trust can be prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and whether it falls within the expression company under Section 141 of that Act.

Analysis: The expression company in the explanation to Section 141 was understood to include any body corporate or other association of individuals. Applying the principle of ejusdem generis, a trust was treated as falling within the wider class of association of individuals. On that reasoning, a trust was held to be a juristic person capable of being prosecuted for dishonour of cheque, and trustees in charge of its affairs could also be liable.

Conclusion: The challenge to the prosecution of the trust under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the concurrent conviction and sentence called for interference in revisional jurisdiction.

Analysis: Revisional power under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is supervisory and does not permit routine reappreciation of evidence. Interference is justified only where the findings are perverse, illegal, or vitiated by non-consideration of material evidence. The accused failed to rebut the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the evidence of liability and issuance of the cheque was accepted by the courts below. No glaring illegality or miscarriage of justice was shown.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were upheld and no interference was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed in full, leaving the conviction, sentence, and consequential direction to pay the fine or compensation undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A trust may be prosecuted for cheque dishonour where it answers the description of an association of individuals under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and concurrent findings supported by statutory presumptions will not be disturbed in revision unless they are perverse or illegal.

---