Cheque dishonour presumptions and sole proprietorship locus standi upheld; revisional interference barred without perversity or illegality.

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was maintainable where the cheque and transaction related to a sole proprietorship's trade name, because the proprietor and the concern are not distinct legal persons. The statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 remained intact since the cheque issue, dishonour, and notice were proved, while the defence of misuse of a blank signed cheque was unsupported and did not show a probable defence. Revisional interference was unwarranted because Section 397 CrPC permits only limited scrutiny, and no perversity, illegality, or material infirmity was shown in the concurrent conviction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was maintainable at the instance of the proprietor of a sole proprietorship concern; (ii) whether the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were rebutted by the defence of misuse of cheque and absence of liability; and (iii) whether the revisional court could interfere with the concurrent conviction and sentence in the absence of perversity or illegality.

Issue (i): Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was maintainable at the instance of the proprietor of a sole proprietorship concern.

Analysis: The cheque and the supporting transaction were linked to the trade name of the concern, and the pleadings, notice, and testimony consistently reflected that the concern was a sole proprietorship. A sole proprietorship has no legal identity distinct from its proprietor, so a transaction in the trade name is in law a transaction of the proprietor. The objection that the complaint was filed in an individual capacity therefore did not create a defect of locus standi.

Conclusion: The complaint was maintainable, and the objection to locus standi failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were rebutted by the defence of misuse of cheque and absence of liability.

Analysis: The issuance of the cheque, its dishonour for stoppage of payment, and service of demand notice were established, which attracted the statutory presumptions in favour of the holder. The defence was inconsistent and unsupported by credible material. Mere suggestions of loss, theft, or misuse of a blank signed cheque, without supporting complaint or explanation of possession, were insufficient to displace the presumptions or show a probable defence.

Conclusion: The presumptions were not rebutted, and the defence failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the revisional court could interfere with the concurrent conviction and sentence in the absence of perversity or illegality.

Analysis: Revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is limited to examining correctness, legality, propriety, and regularity, and it does not permit a reappraisal of evidence as in an appeal. Since the findings below were concurrent and no perversity, illegality, or material infirmity was shown, interference was unwarranted.

Conclusion: No interference was called for in revisional jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was sustained, and the revision petitions were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A complaint concerning a cheque issued in the trade name of a sole proprietorship is maintainable at the instance of the proprietor, and in the absence of a probable defence rebutting the statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, concurrent findings of conviction will not be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction unless perversity or illegality is shown.

---