Statutory presumption for signed cheque liability survives bare security-cheque plea and supports reversal of acquittal

A signed cheque admitted by the accused attracts the statutory presumption of debt or liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and a bare plea that it was a blank security cheque does not rebut that presumption without cogent evidence. The insistence on proof of a final settlement before applying Section 139 was held legally unsustainable, and the acquittal on that basis was reversed. The complaint was also found maintainable because the complainant's authority to institute and pursue the proceeding was established, and delay in disposal did not by itself bar appellate interference with a perverse acquittal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the acquittal could stand when the accused admitted issuance and signature on the cheque and failed to rebut the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. (ii) Whether the complaint was liable to fail for want of proper authorisation and whether the delay in disposal furnished a ground to decline interference with the acquittal.

Issue (i): Whether the acquittal could stand when the accused admitted issuance and signature on the cheque and failed to rebut the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The cheque was admitted to have been issued and signed by the accused partners. The defence that it was a blank security cheque and that the amount was filled in later did not by itself displace the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The materials showed that the cheque related to the invoice amount and there was no cogent evidence to prove absence of legally enforceable debt or liability. The finding of the trial court that the complainant had to prove a final settlement before invoking the presumption was held to be unsustainable in law.

Conclusion: The presumption under Section 139 remained unrebutted and the acquittal on this ground was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the complaint was liable to fail for want of proper authorisation and whether the delay in disposal furnished a ground to decline interference with the acquittal.

Analysis: The objection regarding authority was not accepted because the complainant's representative relationship and authority to institute and pursue the proceeding were found to be established. The Court also held that mere delay in disposal of the appeal did not, by itself, justify refusal to consider an otherwise meritorious challenge to a perverse acquittal. Since the trial court's view on final settlement and absence of liability was found to be perverse, appellate interference was warranted.

Conclusion: The complaint was held maintainable and delay did not bar interference with the acquittal.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was reversed, the respondents were convicted for the offence under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A signed cheque voluntarily issued attracts the statutory presumption of debt or liability, and a bare plea that it was a blank security cheque is insufficient to displace that presumption without cogent rebuttal evidence; an acquittal based on an unsustainable insistence on proof of final settlement is perverse and open to appellate reversal.

---