Statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act prevailed where cheque liability was not rebutted.

Execution of a cheque under the Negotiable Instruments Act triggered the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 in favour of the complainant, and the accused failed to rebut liability by credible evidence on a preponderance of probabilities. A plea that the cheque was issued as security, or that the account statement was not produced, did not by itself displace the statutory presumption. The surrounding circumstances, including non-reply to the notice, supported the complainant's case. The note records that the acquittal was found unsustainable, conviction under Section 138 was restored, and the sentence was altered to fine with default imprisonment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal of the accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was sustainable in view of the admitted execution of the cheque, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139, and the absence of a rebuttal of the liability.

Analysis: The cheque was not seriously disputed, and the defence of discharge was not substantiated by any evidence. Once execution of the cheque was established, the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 operated in favour of the complainant. The plea that the cheque was issued as security or that the supporting account statement was not produced did not, by itself, displace the statutory presumption. The materials on record, including the notice not being replied to and the surrounding circumstances, were sufficient to prove the complainant's case and to show that the accused had not rebutted the presumption on a preponderance of probabilities.

Conclusion: The acquittal was unsustainable and the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was restored; the appeal succeeded and the sentence was modified to fine, with default imprisonment.

---