Cheque dishonour presumptions under the NI Act sustained when admitted execution was not rebutted by a probable defence.

Once execution of the cheque was admitted, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated in favour of the complainant, including the existence of a legally enforceable debt. The accused had to rebut that presumption on a preponderance of probabilities, but the defence of a blank cheque, forgery of the hand-loan bond, and misuse of documents was not supported by persuasive material. Refusal of the demand notice, no reply from the accused, and corroboration by the scribe supported the complainant's case. The trial court's reliance on defence material was held legally unsound, the acquittal was found perverse, and the offence under Section 138 was established.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complainant proved the ingredients of the cheque dishonour offence and whether the acquittal required interference.

Analysis: The cheque signature was admitted and the complainant adduced oral and documentary evidence to show that the cheque and hand loan bond were issued towards a legally enforceable liability. The statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated in favour of the complainant. The accused was required to rebut that presumption on a preponderance of probabilities, but the defence of a blank cheque given in 2001, forgery of the bond, and misuse of documents was found unsupported. The refusal of the demand notice, absence of any reply, the corroboration by the scribe of the bond, and the failure to produce persuasive material to dislodge the presumption showed that the defence did not create a probable doubt. The trial court's reliance on the cheque counterfoil and other defence material was held to be legally unsound and the acquittal was found perverse.

Conclusion: The complainant succeeded in establishing the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption, and the acquittal was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Once execution of the cheque is admitted, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 include a legally enforceable debt, and the accused can escape liability only by rebutting that presumption with a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities.

---