Cheque dishonour presumptions under the NI Act require a probable defence; concurrent sentences may be ordered for connected cases.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operate once execution of the cheques is admitted or proved, and the accused must rebut them with a probable defence supported by evidence. A bare denial or unsubstantiated alternative version was held insufficient, and the conviction was upheld because the cheques, signatures, receipt of money, and existence of a legally enforceable debt were not effectively disproved. Where connected cheque dishonour cases arose from the same transaction, the Court exercised discretion to direct the substantive sentences to run concurrently, while leaving the default consequences for non-payment of compensation unaffected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be interfered with on the ground that the accused had rebutted the statutory presumptions by setting up a probable defence and the complainant had not proved the loan transaction; (ii) Whether the sentences imposed in the connected cheque dishonour cases should run concurrently.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be interfered with on the ground that the accused had rebutted the statutory presumptions by setting up a probable defence and the complainant had not proved the loan transaction.

Analysis: The presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 operates once execution of the cheques is admitted or established, and the accused can rebut it only by bringing on record a probable defence supported by evidence. A mere counter-version that the money was advanced in connection with a joint film venture, without substantiating material, was held insufficient. The Court noted that the issuance and signature of the cheques were not denied, receipt of the money was not disputed, and no acceptable evidence was produced to show that there was no legally enforceable debt or that the complainant lacked financial capacity. The burden therefore did not shift away from the accused.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 was upheld and interference was declined; this issue was decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the sentences imposed in the connected cheque dishonour cases should run concurrently.

Analysis: The offences arose out of the same transaction between the same parties and the cheques were part of one connected financial arrangement. In such circumstances, judicial discretion under Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be exercised to direct concurrent running of the substantive sentences. The default consequences linked to non-payment of compensation were not altered by this direction.

Conclusion: The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently; this issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the conviction failed, but limited relief was granted on the manner in which the substantive terms of imprisonment would operate.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the accused rebuts the statutory presumption only by proving a probable defence with supporting material, and a bare denial is insufficient; where multiple cheque dishonour convictions arise from the same transaction, concurrent substantive sentences may be ordered in the exercise of judicial discretion.

---