Statutory presumption in cheque dishonour cases survived, and limitation was tied to the cheque transaction, not the prior agreement.

Admission of cheque execution and receipt of notice triggered the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of the holder, and the accused failed to rebut them with any probable defence; liability was therefore upheld. The absence of direct privity with the complainant did not defeat Section 138 liability where the evidence showed the cheque was issued by the petitioner towards the transaction. Limitation was computed from the cheque issuance, presentation and dishonour, not from the earlier memorandum of understanding, so the complaint was held within time. Concurrent findings of conviction and sentence were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability and the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act stood unrebutted; (ii) whether the absence of direct privity between the petitioner and the respondent, and the cheque being linked to the petitioner's brother, defeated liability under Section 138; (iii) whether the complaint was barred by limitation because the memorandum of understanding was executed earlier than the cheque transaction.

Issue (i): whether the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability and the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act stood unrebutted.

Analysis: Once execution of the cheque and receipt of legal notice were admitted, the presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arose in favour of the holder. The evidential burden then shifted to the petitioner to rebut the presumption by a probable defence. The petitioner did not lead any evidence and relied only on his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which was insufficient to displace the statutory presumption. The cheque signature being admitted, the instrument was treated as issued towards a legally enforceable debt.

Conclusion: The presumption of liability was not rebutted and the finding of liability was upheld against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): whether the absence of direct privity between the petitioner and the respondent, and the cheque being linked to the petitioner's brother, defeated liability under Section 138.

Analysis: The cheque was found to have been issued by the petitioner himself, and the evidence of the witnesses supported the conclusion that it was handed over by him towards payment of the respondent's share in profit. The fact that the underlying arrangement was entered into with the petitioner's brother did not negate the petitioner's own liability where the cheque was issued on his behalf and the surrounding evidence supported the transaction. The revisional court also declined to reopen factual findings already upheld by the appellate court.

Conclusion: The plea of absence of privity did not dislodge the conviction.

Issue (iii): whether the complaint was barred by limitation because the memorandum of understanding was executed earlier than the cheque transaction.

Analysis: For a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, limitation is computed from the date of issuance, presentation, and dishonour of the cheque, not from the date of the underlying memorandum of understanding. The earlier date of the memorandum therefore had no bearing on limitation in the cheque dishonour proceeding.

Conclusion: The complaint was not barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The revisional court found no illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence, and the petitioner was not entitled to interference in revision.

Ratio Decidendi: In a cheque dishonour case, admission of the cheque and signature activates the statutory presumption of liability, which can be displaced only by a probable defence; limitation is governed by the cheque transaction and dishonour, not by the date of the underlying commercial arrangement.

---