Defective Section 251 accusations can vitiate cheque dishonour trials where they misidentify the instrument and underlying liability.

A defective accusation under Section 251 that identifies a cheque and liability different from the complaint undermines the accused's ability to defend and creates incurable prejudice not saved by Section 465. Although admission of signature raises a rebuttable presumption of legally enforceable debt, failure to prove the asserted source of loan funds, including non-examination of the source witness, may rebut that presumption on a preponderance of probabilities. A signed cheque issued within three years may acknowledge and renew limitation, and dispatch of demand notice to verified addresses supports presumed service. Full compensation deposit, elapsed time and foundational procedural defects may make further custody unnecessary.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an incorrect cheque number and amount stated while explaining the accusation vitiated the trial; (ii) Whether the presumption of legally enforceable debt stood rebutted for want of proof of the complainant's financial capacity; (iii) Whether the debt was time-barred and the statutory demand notice was duly served; (iv) Whether imprisonment should continue after deposit of the compensation amount.

Issue (i): Whether an incorrect cheque number and amount stated while explaining the accusation vitiated the trial.

Analysis: The particulars stated under Section 251 referred to an altogether different cheque and a substantially different amount from the instrument forming the subject of the complaint. Section 251 is the statutory substitute for a formal charge in a summons trial and must inform the accused of the precise accusation to enable an effective defence. The discrepancy was not a clerical error but a fundamental mismatch that caused prejudice from the inception of the trial and could not be cured under Section 465.

Conclusion: The defective explanation of accusation was a structural procedural defect that invalidated the foundation of the trial, in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the presumption of legally enforceable debt stood rebutted for want of proof of the complainant's financial capacity.

Analysis: Admission of the signature attracted the statutory presumption that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt, but that presumption remained rebuttable on a preponderance of probabilities. The complainant asserted that the loan funds came from her father while admitting that she was unemployed, yet the alleged source witness was not examined and supporting proof was not produced. The circumstance concerning the source of funds was also not put to the accused in examination under Section 313.

Conclusion: The absence of proof of the stated source of funds, coupled with the defective examination of the accused, created a material evidentiary gap rebutting the presumption, in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (iii): Whether the debt was time-barred and the statutory demand notice was duly served.

Analysis: The signed cheque was issued within three years of the loan and constituted a written acknowledgment that renewed the limitation period. The demand notice was dispatched to the verified office and bail-bond address, and receipt by an office assistant did not displace the statutory presumption of service.

Conclusion: The debt remained legally enforceable and service of the demand notice was valid, against the petitioner.

Issue (iv): Whether imprisonment should continue after deposit of the compensation amount.

Analysis: The full compensation amount, being twice the cheque value, had already been deposited pursuant to the revisional court's direction. Considering complete financial restitution, the long lapse of time, and the foundational procedural defects, an active custodial sentence was considered unnecessary.

Conclusion: The custodial sentence was not warranted after full restitution, in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The conviction process was legally unsustainable because the accused was not informed of the actual transaction, while the complainant's monetary entitlement was preserved through the compensation already deposited.

Ratio Decidendi: In a summons trial, an accusation under Section 251 that identifies a wholly different instrument and liability from the prosecution case causes incurable prejudice and vitiates the trial; the statutory cheque presumption may be rebutted by material demonstrating an unproved source of the alleged loan.

---