Cheque presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act stood unrebutted; bare coercion plea and minor omissions did not upset conviction.

Execution and signature on the cheque being admitted, the statutory presumption of a legally enforceable liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act continued unless rebutted by probable and cogent evidence. A bare allegation of coercion, fraud, or undue influence, unsupported by independent material or financial records, was insufficient to displace that presumption. The court also found no perversity or patent illegality in the evidence assessment below; minor omissions as to the place of signing or issuance were immaterial. The conviction and sentence under Section 138 read with Section 141 were therefore upheld, and the revisional challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether any valid transaction or refund agreement existed between the parties, or whether the cheque in question was procured from the petitioners through fraud, coercion, or undue influence; (ii) Whether the Trial Court failed to properly assess the evidence in accordance with law while convicting the petitioners under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Issue (i): Whether any valid transaction or refund agreement existed between the parties, or whether the cheque in question was procured from the petitioners through fraud, coercion, or undue influence.

Analysis: The cheque issuance and its dishonour were admitted. The defence of coercion rested only on a bare allegation and an uncorroborated complaint, without independent or reliable supporting material. The petitioners also failed to produce any persuasive evidence to displace the statutory presumption attached to the cheque, and the asserted non-payment of the original consideration was left unsubstantiated by financial records or other contemporaneous proof.

Conclusion: The defence was not proved, and the cheque was held to have been issued in discharge of a legally enforceable liability.

Issue (ii): Whether the Trial Court failed to properly assess the evidence in accordance with law while convicting the petitioners under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The Court held that the concurrent findings did not suffer from perversity or patent illegality. Minor omissions regarding the exact place of signing or issuance of the cheque were treated as immaterial. Once execution of the cheque and signature stood admitted, the statutory presumption operated, and the petitioners failed to rebut it by probable evidence. The reasons recorded by the courts below were found to be adequate and in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were upheld, and no interference was warranted with the concurrent findings.

Final Conclusion: The revisional challenge failed, and the conviction and sentence under the Negotiable Instruments Act were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where execution of a cheque is admitted, the statutory presumption of a legally enforceable liability continues unless the accused rebuts it by probable and cogent evidence; a bare plea of coercion or non-liability is insufficient to dislodge the presumption.

---