Statutory presumption in cheque dishonour cases stands unless rebutted by credible evidence; unsupported repayment defence failed.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, an accused who admits his signature on the cheque must rebut the statutory presumption with credible evidence. Here, the defence of repayment and the claim that the cheques were issued only as security were unsupported by cogent proof: no loan documents were produced, no bank witness was examined, the alleged part-payment by a brother was not proved, and the accused gave inconsistent versions on repayment. The appellate court's reliance on an older printed format on the cheque book was also insufficient to displace the presumption. The acquittal was therefore set aside and the conviction and sentence were restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate court was justified in setting aside the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the ground that the accused had rebutted the statutory presumption and that the cheques were issued only as security.

Analysis: The complaint and evidence showed issuance of signed cheques, dishonour for insufficiency of funds, and non-payment despite notice. The accused admitted the loan transaction, admitted his signatures on the cheques, and set up a defence of repayment. That defence, however, was not supported by cogent proof: no loan agreements were produced, no bank witness was examined, the alleged repayments were not established with clarity, the brother said to have paid part of the amount was not examined, and the accused's versions about the amount repaid were inconsistent. The appellate court's inference from the cheque book bearing a printed year format prior to 2010 was not a sufficient basis to displace the presumption, since no evidence showed that the cheques were not issued in 2011 and the mere use of an older cheque book did not by itself create a suspicious circumstance.

Conclusion: The accused did not rebut the statutory presumption; the acquittal was unsustainable and the conviction under Section 138 stood restored.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the acquittal succeeded, the appellate order was set aside, and the trial court's conviction and sentence were revived.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, an accused who admits signature on the cheque must rebut the statutory presumption with credible evidence; unsupported claims of repayment, inconsistency in defence, or the mere fact that a cheque book bears an older printed format are insufficient to displace the presumption.

---