Cheque presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act stood unrebutted where the accused failed to raise a probable defence.

Admission of the cheque signatures triggered the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheques were issued for consideration and a legally enforceable debt. The accused was required to rebut those presumptions on a preponderance of probabilities by setting up a probable defence, but the claimed donation was found unbelievable and the alternative hand-loan explanation was inconsistent with the defence taken in cross-examination and under Section 313 CrPC. A minor mismatch between the alleged hand-loan amount and the aggregate cheque amount did not, by itself, displace the debt presumption. The conviction under Section 138 was therefore warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused had rebutted the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 so as to displace liability under Section 138 of the Act.

Analysis: The signature on the cheques was admitted, which activated the statutory presumptions that the cheques were issued for consideration and towards a legally enforceable liability. The accused was required to rebut those presumptions on a preponderance of probabilities by raising a probable defence. The defence of donation was found unbelievable, and the explanation that the complainant had demanded a hand loan was inconsistent with the other defence suggested in cross-examination and in the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The minor discrepancy between the hand loan amount and the aggregate cheque amount did not, by itself, create a probable defence or negative the existence of debt.

Conclusion: The accused failed to rebut the statutory presumptions and the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: Once execution or signature on a cheque is admitted, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 operate, and the accused can displace them only by raising a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities.

---