Statutory presumptions in cheque dishonour cases prevail once issuance is admitted, unless rebutted by cogent defence evidence.

In a cheque dishonour prosecution, once execution or issuance of the cheque is admitted or proved, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operate in favour of the holder and the burden shifts to the accused to rebut them with cogent evidence. The complainant's sworn testimony is not displaced by a mere Section 313 CrPC explanation, especially where the witness is not cross-examined. A signed blank cheque, if voluntarily delivered, does not by itself negate liability unless the accused shows that it was not issued towards a debt or other legally enforceable liability. On that basis, the stated result is that the acquittal was unsustainable and liability under Section 138 followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was sustainable when the complainant's testimony was not cross examined, the accused admitted issuance of a signed blank cheque, and no rebuttal evidence was adduced to displace the statutory presumptions.

Analysis: In a prosecution for dishonour of cheque, the essential enquiry is whether the cheque was executed and issued by the accused. Once issuance of the cheque is proved or admitted, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operate in favour of the holder, and the burden shifts to the accused to rebut them by cogent evidence. The complaint is not required to set out exhaustive details of the original transaction unless the complainant relies upon that transaction as the foundation of liability. A statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not substantive evidence and cannot, by itself, outweigh sworn testimony, especially when the witness has not been cross examined. Even a signed blank cheque, if voluntarily delivered, does not avoid liability unless the accused establishes that it was not issued towards a debt or liability.

Conclusion: The acquittal was unsustainable. The presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 stood unrebutted, and the accused was liable under Section 138.

Ratio Decidendi: Once execution or issuance of a cheque is admitted or proved, statutory presumptions of consideration and legally enforceable liability arise, and a bare explanation under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, without rebuttal evidence, is insufficient to displace them, even in cases involving a signed blank cheque.

---