Statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act remained unrebutted, leading to conviction for cheque dishonour.

A cheque proved to have been drawn and dishonoured attracts the statutory presumption of issuance towards a legally enforceable debt or liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act. That presumption was not rebutted here because the accused produced no cogent evidence, the plea that the cheque was lost remained unsupported, and the conduct on record did not displace the presumption. The failure to seek handwriting comparison or otherwise effectively controvert the writings and signatures on the cheque further weakened the defence. The precedent relied on by the trial court was inapposite on these facts, and the acquittal was reversed by convicting the accused under Section 138.

---

---

Issues: Whether the cheque was issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability, and whether the presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act stood rebutted so as to sustain the acquittal.

Analysis: The cheque was proved to have been drawn and dishonoured, attracting the presumption that it was issued for discharge of a debt or liability. The accused did not adduce cogent rebuttal evidence. The suggested defence that the cheque was lost was found unsupported, while the material on record and the conduct of the accused did not displace the statutory presumption. The trial court's reliance on the cited precedent was held inapposite on the facts because the factual foundation of loss was not established here. The omission to seek handwriting comparison or otherwise effectively controvert the writings and signatures on the cheque further weakened the defence.

Conclusion: The presumption remained unrebutted, the cheque was held to have been issued towards a legally enforceable liability, and the acquittal was reversed by convicting the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

---