Statutory presumption of liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act justified reversal of a perverse acquittal.

A voluntarily signed cheque handed over in the course of business dealings attracted the statutory presumption of liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the drawer did not rebut that presumption. The trial court's acquittal was found perverse because it rested on an unsupported assumption that no enforceable debt existed despite dishonour of the cheque, admission of signature, and evidence linking the cheque to the underlying transaction. The challenge to the complainant's authorisation also failed, as the complaint was filed through an authorised representative. The appellate court therefore set aside the acquittal, convicted the respondents, and imposed fine-based compensation with a default sentence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order of acquittal suffered from perversity warranting appellate interference; (ii) Whether issuance of a signed blank cheque, authorisation of the complainant, and the statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act negatived the acquittal.

Issue (i): Whether the order of acquittal suffered from perversity warranting appellate interference.

Analysis: The evidence showed dishonour of the cheque, admission of signature by the accused, and the cheque being issued in the course of business dealings. The trial court's reliance on a supposed final settlement and absence of proof of debt was found unsustainable because the defence did not dispute the transaction in the manner assumed by the acquittal. In an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified where the view taken is perverse or unsupported by the record.

Conclusion: The acquittal was perverse and liable to be set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether issuance of a signed blank cheque, authorisation of the complainant, and the statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act negatived the acquittal.

Analysis: A voluntarily signed blank cheque, once handed over, does not by itself defeat liability; the drawer must rebut the presumption that it was issued towards a debt or liability. The accused admitted issuance and signature, and the materials showed the cheque was connected with the supply of medicines. The challenge to the complainant's authorisation also did not defeat maintainability, since the complaint was filed by an authorised representative and the earlier objection on competence had already been rejected. The statutory presumptions under the Act therefore operated in favour of the complainant.

Conclusion: The presumptions were not rebutted and the complaint remained maintainable, against the respondents.

Final Conclusion: The appellate court interfered with the acquittal, convicted the respondents under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and imposed fine as compensation with a default sentence.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, a signed cheque voluntarily handed over attracts the statutory presumption of liability, and an acquittal based on an unsupported assumption of no enforceable debt is liable to be reversed in appeal where the trial court's view is perverse.

---