Cheque dishonour presumptions prevail once signature is admitted; accused must raise a probable defence to rebut liability.

In cheque dishonour prosecutions, liability can attach to the cheque signatory and a partner responsible for the firm's affairs, so a complaint is maintainable where such person is arraigned and the cheque was issued by the partnership concern. Once issuance and signature are admitted or proved, statutory presumptions operate for the complainant, and the accused must rebut them with a probable defence. The complainant need not first prove source of funds or detailed transaction particulars. On the facts, the defence that the cheque was lost was not credibly supported, the presumptions were not rebutted, and interference with concurrent findings was unjustified; the conviction was restored, with sentence modified to fine only subject to payment time.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act was maintainable where the cheque was issued by a partnership concern and the signatory/partner was arraigned as an accused. (ii) Whether the accused had rebutted the statutory presumptions by raising a probable defence and whether the High Court was justified in reversing the concurrent findings of guilt on the ground that the complainant had not proved the source of funds and surrounding transaction details.

Issue (i): Whether the complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act was maintainable where the cheque was issued by a partnership concern and the signatory/partner was arraigned as an accused.

Analysis: Liability under the cheque dishonour provisions attaches to the drawer and, in the case of a business entity, to persons who are shown to be in charge of and responsible for its affairs. The signatory of the cheque is clearly liable, and the complaint cannot fail merely because the firm is also referred to, where the person actually responsible for issuance of the cheque is before the Court. The facts showed that the accused was a partner and the cheque signatory, and no acceptable objection was established against the maintainability of the complaint on that basis.

Conclusion: The complaint was maintainable and the objection against its maintainability failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the accused had rebutted the statutory presumptions by raising a probable defence and whether the High Court was justified in reversing the concurrent findings of guilt on the ground that the complainant had not proved the source of funds and surrounding transaction details.

Analysis: Once issuance and signature on the cheque were not disputed, the presumptions under the cheque dishonour law operated in favour of the complainant. The complainant was not required at the outset to prove bank withdrawals, source of funds, or other accounting particulars unless the accused first raised a credible and probable defence. The accused's story that the cheque was lost was weakened by the belated police intimation and the absence of convincing supporting material. The High Court, instead of testing whether the accused had rebutted the presumptions on a balance of probabilities, placed an excessive initial burden on the complainant and interfered with well-reasoned concurrent findings without adequate basis.

Conclusion: The statutory presumptions were not rebutted, and the High Court's interference with the conviction was unjustified.

Final Conclusion: The conviction based on dishonour of cheque was restored, and the sentence was modified to a fine only with time granted for payment, failing which the earlier sentence would revive.

Ratio Decidendi: In a cheque dishonour prosecution, once execution of the cheque is admitted or proved, the statutory presumptions operate in favour of the complainant and the accused must rebut them by a probable defence; the complainant is not required at the threshold to prove source of funds or detailed transaction particulars, and a cheque-signatory responsible for the transaction can be proceeded against under the Act.

---