Cheque signature admitted: statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act prevailed, restoring conviction for cheque dishonour.

Where the drawer admits the signature on a cheque, liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act is not avoided merely because the complainant filled in the remaining particulars. A signed and delivered incomplete cheque may be completed by the holder under section 20, and the presumptions under sections 118 and 139 continue to operate unless rebutted by credible evidence. On the facts noted, the drawer failed to give a consistent explanation or reliable proof to displace those presumptions, and the surrounding transaction supported issuance towards an existing liability. The conviction under section 138 was restored, the acquittal was set aside, and the sentence was modified by reducing the substantive imprisonment while directing compensation.

---

---

Issues: Whether a cheque signed by the drawer but filled up by the complainant could be acted upon under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and whether the drawer had rebutted the statutory presumptions so as to displace liability under section 138.

Analysis: The signature on the cheque was not disputed, and the drawer did not give a consistent or credible explanation to rebut the statutory presumptions under sections 118 and 139. A signed and delivered incomplete negotiable instrument authorises the holder to complete it under section 20, and the court should not undertake handwriting comparison of the body of the cheque to defeat liability where the signature is admitted. The evidence, including the surrounding transaction and the absence of reliable proof of stop-payment or loss of the specific cheque, supported the complainant's case that the cheque was issued towards an existing liability.

Conclusion: The cheque was held to have been issued in discharge of liability, the presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act was not rebutted, and the acquittal was set aside with restoration of conviction under section 138.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the finding of guilt was restored, and the sentence was modified by reducing the substantive term of imprisonment while directing payment of compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the drawer admits or does not dispute his signature on a cheque, he cannot avoid liability merely by asserting that the payee filled in the remaining particulars, and the statutory presumptions of issuance and liability continue to operate unless rebutted by credible evidence.

---