Cheque presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act prevailed where the defence failed to rebut liability with credible material.

Where the cheque signature is admitted, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arise, and the accused may rebut them on a preponderance of probabilities, including by relying on the complainant's own material. On the facts, the complainant's regular transactions, matching bills, and supporting circumstances established the cheque liability, while the defence of a security cheque remained unsupported, with no reply to notice and no evidence from the accused. The distinction drawn by the trial court between the description of goods in the bills was held strained, and the adverse inference regarding octroi documents was rejected. The acquittal under Section 138 was set aside and the conviction restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused had rebutted the presumptions arising under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and whether the acquittal under Section 138 was sustainable.

Analysis: The presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 arise where the cheque signature is admitted, and they may be rebutted on the standard of preponderance of probabilities. The accused is not required to lead direct evidence in every case and may rely upon the complainant's own material to raise a probable defence. On the evidence, the complainant established regular transactions, the bills matched the cheque amount, and the cheque was issued in respect of those transactions. The trial Court's emphasis on the bills describing electrical items instead of cosmetic items was found to be a strained distinction that did not discredit the complainant's case. The adverse inference regarding octroi documents was also held to be misplaced. The respondent led no evidence, sent no reply to the notice, and the plea of security cheque remained unsupported by material.

Conclusion: The presumptions were not rebutted by the respondent, the complainant proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt, and the acquittal could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was restored and compensation was directed to be paid.

Ratio Decidendi: A cheque case accused may rebut the statutory presumption by showing a probable defence from the complainant's own evidence, but where the complainant's material establishes the transaction and the cheque amount and the defence remains unsupported, the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 prevails.

---