Cheque presumption and company authorization upheld, with revisional interference refused for lack of perversity in concurrent findings.

A complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act filed by a company through its Managing Director was maintainable where the Articles of Association and Board authorization empowered him to represent the company in legal proceedings, so the authorization challenge failed. Proof of cheque execution, together with the agreement, ledger extracts, confirmation letter and statutory notices, attracted the statutory presumption of debt or liability; the accused adduced no defence evidence and failed to rebut that presumption on a preponderance of probabilities, so liability was upheld. Revisional interference was unwarranted because the concurrent findings were supported by material evidence and showed no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error, and the convictions and sentences were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act filed by a company through its Managing Director was maintainable and compliant with the requirement of authorization; (ii) whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumption arising from proved execution of the cheques and established absence of legally enforceable debt or liability; (iii) whether the revisional court should interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below.

Issue (i): whether a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act filed by a company through its Managing Director was maintainable and compliant with the requirement of authorization.

Analysis: The complainant was the company itself, and it was represented by its Managing Director. The pleadings and evidence showed that the Articles of Association empowered the Managing Director to represent the company in legal matters, and the Board had also authorized institution of proceedings. Once the payee is the company and the complaint is filed through an authorized representative, the statutory requirement is satisfied.

Conclusion: The complaint was maintainable and the challenge to authorization failed.

Issue (ii): whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumption arising from proved execution of the cheques and established absence of legally enforceable debt or liability.

Analysis: The execution of the cheques, the underlying agreement, the ledger extracts, the confirmation letter, and the statutory notices were all proved. On such proof, the presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act arose in favour of the complainant. The accused did not adduce defence evidence and failed to place material sufficient to show, on a preponderance of probabilities, that no debt or liability existed. Minor discrepancy regarding the number of cheques did not dislodge the complainant's consistent case.

Conclusion: The accused failed to rebut the presumption and the finding of liability was upheld.

Issue (iii): whether the revisional court should interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below.

Analysis: Revisional interference is warranted only where the subordinate courts' findings are perverse, illegal, grossly erroneous, or based on no material. The concurrent findings were supported by oral and documentary evidence, and no jurisdictional error, perversity, or palpable misreading was shown.

Conclusion: No interference in revision was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The convictions and sentences recorded by the courts below were sustained, and the revision petitions failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Proof of execution of a cheque attracts the statutory presumption of debt or liability, which the accused must rebut on a preponderance of probabilities; absent such rebuttal, and in the absence of perversity in concurrent findings, revisional interference is unwarranted.

---