Cheque dishonour presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act stand unless rebutted by credible evidence and a probable defence.

In a cheque dishonour prosecution, the court held that where the cheque and signature are not credibly disputed, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operate for the holder. The accused must rebut those presumptions with a probable defence supported by material evidence; merely asserting that the cheque related to another account, without reply to notice, testimony, or other proof, is insufficient. The first appellate court's acceptance of the defence without adequate basis was legally erroneous, and the trial court's conviction was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal recorded by the first appellate court was unsustainable in view of the statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act and the absence of a credible rebuttal by the accused.

Analysis: The complaint related to dishonour of a cheque issued towards repayment of a loan. The trial court had convicted the accused after finding that the cheque and signature were not genuinely disputed and that the defence suggesting the cheque belonged to another account was not supported by any material. The accused did not reply to the statutory notice, did not enter the witness box, and did not place any evidence in rebuttal. In these circumstances, the presumptions attached to the cheque and the liability arising from it remained unrebutted. The appellate court accepted the defence without adequate basis and treated the matter as falling outside the scope of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which was found to be legally erroneous.

Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside and the conviction recorded by the trial court was restored, in favour of the complainant-appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: When a cheque and signature are not credibly disproved, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 operate in favour of the holder, and an accused must rebut them by a probable defence supported by material evidence.

---