Signed cheque presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act survived; inconsistent defence failed to rebut cheque dishonour liability.

Admission of the drawer's signature on a cheque attracts the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, even if the remaining entries were written by another hand or the cheque was filled up later, provided it was voluntarily signed and handed over. The accused must rebut those presumptions on a preponderance of probabilities, but inconsistent defence versions, unsupported claims of a blank security cheque, and absence of credible proof of repayment or discharge were insufficient. The presumptions therefore remained unrebutted, the ingredients of cheque dishonour were established, and the conviction was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether admission of signature on a cheque, though other entries are in a different hand, attracts the statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act; (ii) Whether the accused rebutted the presumptions by showing that the cheque was issued as a blank security cheque or that the liability stood discharged.

Issue (i): Whether admission of signature on a cheque, though other entries are in a different hand, attracts the statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis: Once the drawer admits the signature on the cheque, the cheque is treated as belonging to the drawer and the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 arise in favour of the holder. The fact that the cheque was filled up later, or that other writings are in a different hand, does not by itself invalidate the instrument or destroy the statutory presumption when the cheque was voluntarily signed and handed over.

Conclusion: The presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applied in favour of the complainant.

Issue (ii): Whether the accused rebutted the presumptions by showing that the cheque was issued as a blank security cheque or that the liability stood discharged.

Analysis: The accused was required to rebut the presumptions on a preponderance of probabilities. The defence versions were inconsistent, the notice was not received, and no convincing evidence of repayment or return of the cheque was produced. The plea that the cheque was only a security cheque or that the amount had been discharged was not substantiated by acceptable evidence.

Conclusion: The accused did not rebut the statutory presumptions, and the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stood established.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside and the conviction for cheque dishonour was restored, resulting in liability against the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: A signed cheque voluntarily handed over attracts the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the drawer can avoid liability only by rebutting those presumptions with evidence showing absence of debt or liability.

---