Statutory presumption in cheque dishonour cases operates once execution is proved; unsupported defence cannot rebut it.

In a cheque dishonour prosecution, the complainant's oral evidence and the accused's signature on the cheque were treated as sufficient to prove execution and delivery, particularly where the accused gave no credible explanation for the cheque's possession by the complainant. The trial court's reliance on minor discrepancies was rejected as insufficient to discredit the complainant. Once execution was established, the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated, and the accused had to rebut it by evidence or acceptable probabilities. As no supporting evidence was produced for the defence version, the presumption remained unrebutted and acquittal could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complainant proved that the accused drew and delivered the cheque and whether the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was rebutted so as to justify acquittal under Section 138 of that Act.

Analysis: The complainant's oral evidence was accepted as sufficient to prove execution and delivery of the cheque, especially as the cheque bore the accused's signature and the accused offered no credible explanation as to how the cheque came into the complainant's possession. The discrepancies relied on by the trial court were found not to discredit the complainant's testimony. Once execution was proved, the statutory presumption under Section 139 operated, and the accused was required to rebut it by evidence or by bringing acceptable probabilities in support of his defence. No evidence was adduced to support the defence version, and the burden of rebuttal remained undischarged.

Conclusion: The acquittal could not stand. The accused was found guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and conviction was warranted.

---