Cheque Signature Presumption in Section 138 cases can sustain conviction when defence fails to rebut liability evidence.

Where the accused admitted the cheque signature in a Section 138 prosecution, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operated in favour of the complainant once execution and foundational facts were shown. A plea that the cheque was blank or issued as security was insufficient unless supported by reliable witness evidence or convincing documents. Evidence of credit sale, invoice, dishonour for insufficiency of funds, valid notice, and failure to pay within the statutory period completed the offence. In appellate review of acquittal, the court may reappreciate evidence, and an acquittal based on ignoring admissible material can be set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was unsustainable in view of the admitted signature on the cheque, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139, and the evidence showing existence of a legally enforceable liability.

Analysis: The cheque was admitted to have been signed by the accused and the surrounding evidence showed a credit sale transaction supported by a bill/invoice. Once execution of the cheque and foundational facts were established, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operated in favour of the complainant, and the burden shifted to the accused to rebut them by reliable and acceptable evidence. A plea that the cheque was blank or issued only as security was insufficient by itself, particularly when the defence version was not substantiated by the testimony of material witnesses or by convincing documentary proof. The dishonour of the cheque for insufficiency of funds, issuance and service of demand notice, and failure to pay within the statutory period completed the ingredients of the offence. In an appeal against acquittal, the evidence can be reappreciated, but the presumption of innocence cannot displace a conviction where the trial court ignored admissible evidence and drew an unsustainable view.

Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside and the accused was held guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

---