Statutory presumptions in cheque dishonour cases prevail when issuance and signature are admitted unless rebutted by probable defence.

In a cheque dishonour prosecution, admitted issuance and signature on the cheque triggered the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of the complainant. The accused was required to rebut those presumptions by a probable defence on the preponderance of probabilities, but the claim that the cheque was a blank security instrument in a chit transaction, that the complainant lacked capacity, and that payment had already been made was not supported by cogent evidence. The court held that the trial court wrongly insisted on additional documents and source-of-funds proof despite the statutory presumption, and found the defence evidence inconsistent and unconvincing. The acquittal was therefore held to be illegal and perverse.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal in the cheque dishonour prosecution was based on proper appreciation of evidence and whether the accused had rebutted the statutory presumptions arising from admitted issuance and signature on the cheque.

Analysis: The cheque, signature, dishonour for insufficiency of funds, and service of notice were proved. Once issuance and signature were admitted, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 operated in favour of the complainant. The accused was required to rebut the presumption by a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities. The defence that the cheque was a blank security cheque issued in a chit transaction, that the complainant lacked capacity, and that the amount had been repaid was not supported by cogent evidence. The trial court's insistence on additional documents, source of funds, and loan records was held to be an incorrect approach in the face of the statutory presumption. The defence evidence was found to be unconvincing and inconsistent.

Conclusion: The acquittal was held to be illegal and perverse, and the presumption in favour of the complainant remained unrebutted.

---