Cheque dishonour presumption under Section 139 applies once issuance, dishonour and notice are shown; rebuttal must come from the accused.

In a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of admitted cheques, Section 139 raises a presumption that the cheques were issued in discharge of a debt or liability once issuance, dishonour and statutory notice are shown. The complainant is not required to separately prove performance of the underlying contract as if in a civil suit, unless that presumption is displaced. Where the accused does not deny the cheques, signature, proper presentation, or rebut the notice with a probable defence, the statutory presumption remains unrebutted and the complaint under Section 138 is made out.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complainant was required to independently prove performance of the underlying contract when the cheques issued by the respondent were admitted and dishonoured, and whether the statutory presumption under Section 139 stood unrebutted.

Analysis: The complaint was founded on dishonour of cheques admittedly issued by the respondent, their return for insufficiency of funds, and due notice of dishonour. In such circumstances, Section 139 raises a presumption that the cheque was received in discharge of a debt or liability. The complainant was not required to first prove, as in a civil claim on contract, that it had fulfilled all obligations under the agreement, because the prosecution was based on the dishonoured cheques and not on independent enforcement of the contract. There was no defence that the cheques were not issued by the respondent, did not bear his signature, or were improperly presented, and the respondent did not reply to the statutory notice.

Conclusion: The presumption under Section 139 applied and was not rebutted. The complaint under Section 138 was made out, and the finding of the courts below was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The dishonour of the admitted cheques established criminal liability under the cheque dishonour law, and the respondent was held liable to pay the cheque amount with interest.

Ratio Decidendi: Once issuance of the cheque, its dishonour, and statutory notice are established, Section 139 mandates a presumption of debt or liability, and the accused must rebut that presumption with a probable defence; the complainant need not independently prove the underlying contractual performance unless that presumption is displaced.

---