Section 138 cheque dishonour presumptions stood unrebutted where the accused failed to prove any probable defence.

Where the cheque and signatures were admitted, dishonour twice for insufficiency of funds, statutory notice, and non-payment triggered the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of the cheque holder. The accused's plea that the cheque was issued to a third person and that the complainant lacked financial capacity was unsupported by evidence, and cross-examination did not establish a probable defence on a preponderance of probability. The concurrent conviction under Section 138 was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the concurrent conviction of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was liable to be set aside for want of proof of liability and for failure to rebut the statutory presumptions.

Analysis: The cheque issued by the accused was admitted, and the signatures were not disputed. The cheque was dishonoured twice for insufficiency of funds, statutory notice was issued, and no reply or payment was made. In proceedings under Section 138, the presumptions under Section 118(a) and Section 139 operate in favour of the holder of the cheque. The accused raised a plea that the cheque had been issued to the complainant's son-in-law and that the complainant lacked financial capacity, but no evidence was produced to support that defence. The cross-examination of the complainant and the supporting witness did not displace the presumptions, and the defence failed to show a probable version on the basis of preponderance of probability.

Conclusion: The accused failed to rebut the statutory presumptions, and the concurrent findings of guilt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were upheld.

---