Cheque presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act stands unless the accused shows a probable defence and no liability.

A voluntarily signed cheque attracts the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of the holder, and those presumptions are rebutted only by cogent material showing absence of debt, liability, or a probable defence. A blank cheque, if signed and handed over voluntarily, also attracts the same presumption unless theft, coercion, or misuse is convincingly shown. On the facts stated, the accused failed to displace the presumption, so the conviction under Section 138 stood; the sentence was then modified in revision from custody to a fine with compensation and default imprisonment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was liable to be interfered with on the ground that the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 stood rebutted. (ii) Whether the sentence required modification in revision.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was liable to be interfered with on the ground that the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 stood rebutted.

Analysis: Once execution of the cheque is proved or admitted, the statutory presumptions as to consideration and discharge of debt arise in favour of the holder. Those presumptions are rebuttable, but the accused must adduce cogent material to show absence of debt or liability or to set up a probable defence. A voluntarily signed blank cheque also attracts the presumption when there is no convincing evidence of theft, coercion, or misuse. The accused did not produce sufficient evidence to displace the presumption, and the concurrent findings that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt called for no revisional interference.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 was upheld and the challenge on merits failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the sentence required modification in revision.

Analysis: The offence under Section 138 permits punishment by imprisonment or fine or both. In the circumstances of the case, the custodial sentence was considered suitable for conversion into a fine with compensation, with time granted for deposit in view of the prevailing situation.

Conclusion: The sentence was modified to a fine with default simple imprisonment and compensation to the complainant.

Final Conclusion: The conviction remained intact, but the punishment was altered to a monetary sentence with default imprisonment, resulting in partial relief to the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: A cheque voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused attracts the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and those presumptions can be displaced only by cogent evidence showing a probable defence and absence of liability.

---