Statutory presumption on signed cheques survives despite ink-age dispute and can be rebutted only by evidence.

Where the drawer admits the cheque signature, the cheque is treated as an inchoate instrument and the statutory presumption of liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act remains unless rebutted by evidence. A plea that the cheque was filled by another person, or that expert examination of ink age is needed, is insufficient by itself to displace that presumption. The refusal to allow expert examination did not extinguish the accused's right to adduce defence evidence to rebut the presumption, and interference with that order was not warranted. The challenge therefore failed, while the accused remained free to contest liability at trial by appropriate evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refusal to permit expert examination to ascertain the age of ink used in the cheque warranted interference in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The cheque signature was admitted, and the defence was that the cheque had been issued to a third party and later misused. In such a situation, the holder or payee may fill up the cheque, and the drawer who signs and delivers it remains liable unless the statutory presumption is rebutted by evidence. The age of the ink was held to be of limited relevance because the dispute did not turn on the physical filling of the cheque alone. Rejection of the expert-opinion request did not extinguish the accused's right to lead evidence in support of the defence and to rebut the presumption arising under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Conclusion: Interference with the order rejecting the application was not warranted, and the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The petition was dismissed, while leaving the accused at liberty to contest the statutory presumption in the trial by appropriate evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the drawer admits his signature on a cheque, the cheque remains an inchoate instrument and the mere plea that the contents were filled by another, or that the age of the ink should be scientifically examined, does not by itself displace the statutory presumption or justify interference unless the accused shows a stronger basis for rebuttal.

---