Cheque dishonour presumptions and firm arraignment requirements controlled liability; absence of the firm as accused defeated prosecution.

Once execution and issuance of a cheque are proved, the presumptions of consideration and legally enforceable debt under the Negotiable Instruments Act arise, and they can be displaced only by a probable defence supported by material evidence; a bare denial or unsupported statement is insufficient, so the presumption remained unrebutted. For vicarious liability in a cheque prosecution involving a firm, the firm must be arraigned as an accused before liability can be fastened on a partner; because the complaint proceeded only against the partner and not the firm, the prosecution was not maintainable. The appeal therefore failed and the acquittal was maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act stood rebutted so as to displace the complainant's case of cheque liability. (ii) Whether prosecution of a partner was maintainable when the firm on whose behalf the cheque was issued was not arraigned as an accused.

Issue (i): Whether the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act stood rebutted so as to displace the complainant's case of cheque liability.

Analysis: Once execution and issuance of a cheque are shown, presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 arise in favour of consideration and discharge of debt or liability. Those presumptions are rebuttable, but the accused must place material creating a probable defence; a bare denial or an unsubstantiated statement under Section 313 of the Code does not suffice. The record did not contain persuasive material to show that the cheque was not issued towards a legally enforceable liability.

Conclusion: The presumption in favour of the holder was not rebutted on the evidence, and this contention failed against the accused.

Issue (ii): Whether prosecution of a partner was maintainable when the firm on whose behalf the cheque was issued was not arraigned as an accused.

Analysis: Section 141 creates vicarious liability where the drawer is a company or firm, and the precedent applied by the Court requires arraignment of the company or firm as an accused for maintaining such prosecution. Since the complaint proceeded only against the partner and not against the firm, the condition precedent for fastening vicarious liability was absent.

Conclusion: The prosecution was not maintainable without impleading the firm as an accused, and this issue was decided against the complainant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the complaint could not be sustained in the absence of the firm being made an accused, and the acquittal was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: For a prosecution based on a cheque issued by a firm, the firm must be arraigned as an accused before vicarious liability can be fastened on its partner, and the statutory presumption under the cheque dishonour law is rebuttable only by a probable defence supported by material evidence.

---