Statutory presumptions in cheque dishonour cases shift the burden to the accused once signature and issuance are admitted.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, once issuance of the cheque and the admitted signature are proved, presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 arise in favour of the complainant. The burden then shifts to the accused to rebut those presumptions with credible evidence. The text notes that speculative reasoning about how the cheque was filled or surrounding circumstances cannot displace the statutory presumptions. On the stated facts, the accused did not discharge the burden of rebuttal, and the dismissal of the complaint was described as unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complainant was entitled to the statutory presumptions arising from the admitted signature on the cheque and whether the accused had rebutted those presumptions so as to justify dismissal of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: Where the cheque is proved to have been drawn from the accused's account and the signature is admitted, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arise in favour of the complainant. The burden then shifts to the accused to rebut those presumptions by cogent evidence. The Court found that the trial court had proceeded on speculative observations about the manner in which the cheque was filled up and the surrounding circumstances, instead of applying the statutory presumptions and the burden of proof correctly. On the evidence, the accused did not discharge the burden of rebuttal.

Conclusion: The complaint ought not to have been dismissed, as the accused failed to rebut the presumptions available to the complainant.

Final Conclusion: The conviction-related dismissal was unsustainable and the matter was sent back for restoration and fresh disposal according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, once issuance and signature on the cheque are established, statutory presumptions of consideration and liability arise and the accused must rebut them by credible evidence; failure to do so entitles the complainant to succeed.

---