Cheque signature presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act stands unless a probable defence rebuts liability and notice service.

Admission of signatures on a cheque attracts the statutory presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and a bare claim that the cheque was issued only as security is not enough to rebut it. Unsupported defence evidence, non-examination of the alleged financier, and absence of reliable finance records left the liability finding intact. The objection of non-service of demand notice also failed because the address used for service was admitted and service could be presumed under section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The challenge to the complainant's financial capacity was not raised in trial or cross-examination and therefore did not affect the conviction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the accused successfully rebutted the statutory presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by proving that the cheque was issued only as security for a television purchase and not towards a legally enforceable liability. (ii) Whether the defence regarding non-service of legal demand notice and absence of proof of the complainant's financial capacity displaced the conviction under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Issue (i): Whether the accused successfully rebutted the statutory presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by proving that the cheque was issued only as security for a television purchase and not towards a legally enforceable liability.

Analysis: The accused admitted his signatures on the cheque and the bayana receipt, thereby attracting the statutory presumption that the cheque was issued for discharge of debt or liability. The defence version that the cheque was handed over as security for a television financed through a third person was not supported by reliable documentary evidence or convincing witness testimony. The alleged financier was not examined, no finance records were produced, and the supporting witnesses were found unconvincing and insufficient to rebut the presumption on a preponderance of probabilities. The bayana receipt was also proved through the complainant and the attesting witness.

Conclusion: The accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption, and the finding of liability under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the defence regarding non-service of legal demand notice and absence of proof of the complainant's financial capacity displaced the conviction under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The accused did not specifically deny receipt of notice at the earliest stage and admitted the address used for service. The presumption of service under section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and the principle governing service in dishonour cases supported the complainant. The objection regarding the complainant's source of funds was neither raised before the trial court nor put in cross-examination, and therefore did not weaken the complainant's case.

Conclusion: The service of notice was treated as duly proved, and the objection regarding financial capacity did not affect the conviction.

Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge to the conviction and sentence failed in full, and the conviction under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Admission of signatures on the cheque attracts the statutory presumption of liability, which can be displaced only by credible evidence showing a probable defence; unsupported explanations and weak defence evidence are insufficient, and service of notice may be presumed where the address is admitted.

---