Presumption of legally enforceable debt under cheque dishonour law upheld; special statute controls sentencing and fine stayed valid.

In a Section 138 NI Act prosecution, the Delhi HC held that the presumption of a legally enforceable debt was not rebutted on a preponderance of probabilities where the complainant's bank and tax records supported the loan, the accused admitted her signatures, produced no proof of repayment or misuse, and remained silent after notice. The conviction was therefore upheld. On sentence, the Court held that the fine was within jurisdiction because Section 138, as a special statute, authorises fine up to twice the cheque amount and prevails over the general limit in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The revision was dismissed and conviction and sentence were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was liable to be interfered with on the ground that the cheque was not issued towards a subsisting liability and the statutory presumption stood rebutted. (ii) Whether the fine imposed by the Metropolitan Magistrate was without jurisdiction under Section 29(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was liable to be interfered with on the ground that the cheque was not issued towards a subsisting liability and the statutory presumption stood rebutted.

Analysis: The loan transaction was supported by the complainant's bank records, income-tax documents and cash withdrawals, which were treated as corroboration of financial capacity. The defence that the petitioner had no dealings with the complainant was not accepted because the evidence showed that the intermediary had arranged the loan on her behalf, and there was no effective cross-examination to dislodge that version. The petitioner admitted her signatures on the cheque but failed to produce evidence of repayment or any credible material showing misuse. Her silence after service of legal notice and absence of steps to stop payment against the cheque also weighed against her. On these facts, the presumption in favour of a legally enforceable debt was not rebutted on the standard of preponderance of probabilities.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was upheld and the challenge on merits failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the fine imposed by the Metropolitan Magistrate was without jurisdiction under Section 29(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The sentencing was examined in the context of a prosecution under a special statute, where Section 138 itself authorises imprisonment and fine up to twice the cheque amount. The special provision was treated as controlling over the general limitation in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Since the fine imposed was within the statutory ceiling linked to the cheque amount, the jurisdictional objection was rejected.

Conclusion: The fine imposed was held to be within jurisdiction and valid.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed on both liability and sentence, and the conviction as well as the sentence were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the accused must rebut the presumption of legally enforceable liability on a preponderance of probabilities, and the sentencing power under the special statute prevails over the general limitation in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 where the fine remains within the statutory maximum under the special law.

---