Statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act remain unless the drawer proves a probable defence on preponderance of probabilities.

Admission of the drawer's signature and issuance of a cheque triggers the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheque was issued for discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The accused must then rebut that presumption by raising a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities. A bare plea that the cheque was only a security cheque, without reliable supporting material or evidence of cash payment, is insufficient to displace the presumption, and the ingredients of Section 138 remain satisfied.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner successfully rebutted the statutory presumptions arising from the admitted issuance and signature on the cheque, and whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act required interference in revision.

Analysis: Once the drawer's signature and issuance of the cheque were admitted, the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arose that the cheque was issued for discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The burden shifted to the accused to raise a probable defence on the standard of preponderance of probabilities. The defence that the cheque was only a security cheque was not substantiated by any reliable material, and no receipt or other evidence was produced to show payment of rent in cash or to rebut the complainant's case. In the absence of proof sufficient to displace the statutory presumption, the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 remained established.

Conclusion: The petitioner failed to rebut the statutory presumptions and the conviction and sentence were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The revision was found meritless, and the findings of guilt recorded by the courts below remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Admission of cheque execution and signature raises a rebuttable presumption of legally enforceable liability, which can be displaced only by a probable defence proved on a preponderance of probabilities.

---