Section 139 presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act survives blank cheque filling unless a probable defence rebuts liability.

Notice of demand under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was duly served where it was dispatched to the correct address by prepaid post and the acknowledgment card bore the accused's signature, attracting the presumptions under section 114 of the Evidence Act and section 27 of the General Clauses Act. The accused did not rebut the section 139 presumption because the admitted signature and transaction, coupled with an improbable defence of coercion and misuse, were insufficient on a preponderance of probabilities. Filling in cheque particulars by someone other than the drawer did not take the case outside section 138, as a blank signed cheque carries implied authority to complete details and the statutory presumption remains unaffected. Conviction was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether notice of demand under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was duly served; (ii) whether the accused rebutted the presumption under section 139 that the cheque was issued for discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability; and (iii) whether the fact that the cheque particulars were written by someone other than the drawer took the case outside section 138.

Issue (i): whether notice of demand under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was duly served.

Analysis: Despatch of the demand notice to the correct address by prepaid post was proved. The acknowledgment card bearing the accused's signature was produced. On that basis, the presumption of due service under section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 applied.

Conclusion: The notice of demand was held to have been duly served.

Issue (ii): whether the accused rebutted the presumption under section 139 that the cheque was issued for discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability.

Analysis: The financial transaction and the signature on the cheque were admitted. The accused's version that the cheque was forcibly taken and that blank signed leaves were misused was found to be inconsistent with the surrounding circumstances and human probabilities. Mere denials and improbable explanations were held insufficient to displace the statutory presumption on the standard of preponderance of probabilities.

Conclusion: The presumption under section 139 was not rebutted and the cheque was held to have been issued for a legally enforceable liability.

Issue (iii): whether the fact that the cheque particulars were written by someone other than the drawer took the case outside section 138.

Analysis: It was held that a cheque does not cease to be a cheque merely because the payee's name or other particulars were filled in by another person. A person handing over a blank signed cheque is taken to have given implied authority to fill in the details, and such filling up does not by itself defeat the statutory presumption or amount to a material alteration.

Conclusion: The objection based on handwriting of the cheque particulars was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The conviction under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was restored, and the acquittal was set aside with compensation ordered to the complainant.

Ratio Decidendi: The statutory presumption under section 139 applies to all cheques, and a drawer who hands over a blank signed cheque cannot avoid liability merely because the particulars were filled in by another, unless the presumption is rebutted by a probable and credible defence.

---