Statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act prevailed where cheque execution and debt acknowledgment were admitted.

Admitted execution of the cheque and loan receipt attracted the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, so the accused had to rebut liability by a probable and cogent defence. The plea that the cheque was issued only as security was rejected because the loan receipt itself recorded the loan transaction and no credible evidence showed absence of debt or liability. Finding no illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings below, the conviction under Section 138 was upheld and the revision petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was liable to be interfered with in revision, and whether the accused had rebutted the statutory presumptions arising from the admitted cheque and loan receipt.

Analysis: The cheque and the loan receipt were both admitted by the petitioner, including his signatures and handwriting on the loan receipt. The Court relied on the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and on the settled principle that the burden to rebut such presumptions lies on the accused by raising a probable defence. The defence that the cheque was issued as security was rejected because the admitted loan receipt recorded the loan transaction, and no cogent evidence was produced to show that the cheque was not issued towards a debt or liability. The Court also found no illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings of the courts below.

Conclusion: The petitioner failed to rebut the presumptions and the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was upheld; the revision petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Once execution of the cheque and supporting acknowledgment of debt are admitted, the statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act operate unless the accused rebuts them by a probable and cogent defence showing non-existence of liability.

---