Cheque dishonour presumption under Section 139 stands unrebutted when the drawer admits signature and offers no credible defence.

Where the drawer admitted the cheque and signature, the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act remained intact because the defence version of loss of the cheque was unsupported by any immediate police complaint, stop-payment instruction, or other credible rebuttal material. The dishonour memo showing insufficiency of funds supported liability, and the conviction under Section 138 was restored. Non-examination of the complainant did not justify an adverse inference because the power of attorney was proved, the agent gave evidence from personal knowledge, and the complainant had explained his inability to appear personally.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumption arising from the dishonoured cheque; (ii) Whether an adverse inference could be drawn against the complainant for not examining himself and for examining the power of attorney holder.

Issue (i): Whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumption arising from the dishonoured cheque.

Analysis: The cheque and the signature were admitted by the accused. The defence version that the cheque had been taken away during a dispute was found unsupported, since no immediate police complaint or stop-payment instruction was shown. The surrounding conduct of the accused and his family also indicated an attempt to resist payment rather than a credible rebuttal of liability. The dishonour memo showed insufficiency of funds, and the accused failed to displace the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Conclusion: The presumption was not rebutted and the finding of guilt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was restored.

Issue (ii): Whether an adverse inference could be drawn against the complainant for not examining himself and for examining the power of attorney holder.

Analysis: The power of attorney was proved and not disputed. The power agent's evidence showed personal knowledge of the transaction, and the complainant had stated inability to appear personally. In those circumstances, mere non-examination of the complainant did not justify an adverse inference.

Conclusion: No adverse inference could be drawn against the complainant on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The appellate court's reversal of conviction was set aside, the conviction for cheque dishonour was restored, and the sentence was modified.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the drawer admits the cheque and signature but fails to produce credible material showing rebuttal of the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the cheque dishonour offence under Section 138 is made out, and non-examination of the complainant is not fatal when the power of attorney holder proves the transaction from personal knowledge.

---